Priyma F.Ya.: Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir

Tyvin State University

Faculty of Philology

Department of Russian Language

ON THE TOPIC: First steps in streamlining the Russian literary language on a new basis (A.D. Kantemir, V.K. Trediakovsky)

Performed by 5th year student of 4th group Chashtyg O.Kh.

Checked by: Suzdaltseva L.T.

Kyzyl - 2009

The formation of the national Russian literary language consisted of complex transformations of the structure of literary texts and the restructuring of the literary language as a system of subsystems, the destruction of the old opposition between two types of literary language and the formation of a system of its functional varieties. The completion of this process is associated with the activity of Pushkin, with the development of realism in literature, but its immediate origins date back to the end of Peter the Great’s time and the beginning of the next stage in the history of Russian literature and the Russian literary language - to the period of classicism, which can rightfully be called the Lomonosov period. The first practical steps in streamlining the Russian literary language based on the theoretical principles of classicism, providing for the correspondence of the genre and style of a literary work, were made by A. D. Kantemir in his poetic satires.

Cantemir viewed satire as a genre requiring a “low” style. He spoke about the language of his writings as follows: “Having used to write meanly and in a low style, I do not know how to compose panegyrics, where it is necessary to use a high calm.” In accordance with this attitude, Cantemir quite boldly introduces vernacular, sometimes rude, vernacular into the text of his satires. Thus, in satire II “Filaret and Eugene” we read:

You sniffle menacingly while two days pass by, You yawn, open your eyes, sleep to your heart's content, You've been dragging on for an hour or two, basking, waiting for the swill that India sends or is brought from China, You jump from bed to the mirror with one bound...

Here we find such words and expressions as boredom, haste, stew, belongings, vile woman's face, spits on that, rubs on the whetstone, manages pieces in the mouth like a pig's bridle, and others.

However, Cantemir observes moderation in the use of vernacular. The means of spoken language are subject to a certain selection and ordering in Cantemir’s satires. He is equally careful in the use of Church Slavonicisms, of which there are very few in his satires. Particularly significant is the fact that Cantemir avoids the collision in one context of Church Slavonicisms and vernacular, a collision so characteristic of the language of many literary works of Peter the Great's time. As a result, a fairly even language is created, free from both pompous “Slavicism” and deliberate colloquial rudeness. Here is a typical excerpt from the same satire “Filaret and Eugene”:

How can I entrust the ship to you? You didn’t steer the boat, And although you left only the shore in your pond, You immediately rush to the shore of the smooth waters. Who was the first to go into the vast sea, had a copper heart: death surrounds there from below, from above and from the sides, one separates from it a board, only four fingers thick: Your soul demands a wider border with it; And written death makes you tremble; One serf only tempts your courage, That alone he will not dare to answer you.

Kantemir is often assessed as a writer who completes ancient and begins new Russian literature. This well-founded assessment also applies to the language of his works. Despite the enormous power of the objectively ongoing process of democratization of the literary language, the majority of writers up to the time of Peter the Great still considered the language of the book Slavic type to be a literary language. Therefore, even without mastering this type of language as an integral subsystem, they sometimes sought to use, and more often inopportunely, book Slavic grammatical forms, words and phrases. Kantemir was the first major Russian writer who consciously abandoned the book-Slavic type of language and turned to the spoken language as the main source of the language of his works.

Within the framework of the poetics of classicism, satire as a literary genre opened up the possibility of freely turning to everyday living use to build the language of a literary work. However, it would be completely wrong to identify the language of the “low” genres of classicism with everyday vernacular. Cantemir qualifies the style of his satires as “low” only in contrast to the “high,” book-Slavic style of panegyric poetry. "Low" style did not mean a reduced, vulgar, rude style; “low” he was only in contrast to “high”. The term “low style”, drawn from ancient and medieval rhetoric, was not at all successful for the Russian language due to the additional semantic associations that it evoked, therefore, along with this term, another, more consistent with the essence of the designated phenomenon, was used - “simple style”.

A notable milestone in the theoretical understanding of the processes of development of the Russian literary language is the works of V. K. Tedikaovsky. In 1730, Trediakovsky published a translation of the novel “Riding to the Island of Love” by the French writer Paul Talman. In his address “To the Reader,” the translator wrote:

I humbly ask you not to be angry with me (even if you still stick to Slavic language with deep words) that I translated it not into Slavic language, but into almost the simplest Russian word, that is, the one we speak among ourselves. I did this for the following reasons. First: our Slovenian language is the language of the church, but this book is secular. Another: the Slovenian language in our present century is very obscure, and many of us do not understand it when reading it, but this book is a sweet book of love, for this reason it should be intelligible to everyone. Third: which may seem to you the easiest, but which for me is considered the most important, that is, that the Slavonic language is now cruel to my ears, although before this I not only wrote to them, but also talked to everyone: but for that I apologize to everyone in whose presence I, with the stupidity of my Slavic special speechmaker, wanted to show myself.

This statement puts forward two important theoretical positions: 1) the rejection of the “Slavic” language as a language of literature and the recognition of its role only as the language of the church, 2) an orientation towards the spoken language as the basis of the literary language. There are also significant indications that in the first half of the 18th century. “the Slavic language” was already “very dark” for most readers, incomprehensible, and for some it was aesthetically unacceptable (“the Slavic language is now cruel to my ears”).

Here it is necessary to return to the already touched upon question of the essence of the phenomenon called the rapprochement of the literary language with the spoken language, and also briefly consider the question of what writers and philologists of the 18th century meant. under the "Slavic language".

During the period of nation formation, which is characterized by “unity of language and unhindered development,” the tendency to diverge between the literary and colloquial language is overcome, and the tendency to bring the literary language closer to the colloquial language becomes dominant. This rapprochement consists of eliminating archaic-bookish linguistic units from the literary language and replacing them with units of colloquial use, as well as eliminating methods of organizing linguistic units in a literary text that most obviously conflict with the generally accepted organization of linguistic units in colloquial practice.

For writers and philologists of the 18th century. there was, of course, an obvious significant difference between the then colloquial “living use” and the ancient literary language, to which the name “Slavic” was assigned. And if in modern science the question is about the literary language of Ancient Rus'. Its varieties were not fully clarified, but in the 18th century. Moreover, he appeared very vaguely. “Slavenian language” was a general term for the language of ancient books, mainly religious (“the Slavonic language is our church language”), without identifying or emphasizing the differences either between Church Slavonic and Old Russian literary languages, or between types of Old Russian literary language. The “Slavic language” was correlated with the Russian language as a language of the past (“the Slavic language in our present century is very obscure”) with a modern language. V.V. Kolesov writes: “Unlike the previous era, in the 18th century. What was relevant was not the Church Slavonic - Russian opposition, but the living Russian (all-Russian) - archaic opposition (including Slavicisms of various kinds." This statement correctly reflects the ideas of the writers of that time. In 1769, D. I. Fonvizin wrote: "All our books written either in the Slavic or modern language." The chronological, and not genetic, opposition between the "Slavic" and the "current" language is formulated here quite clearly.

In the 18th century The expression “Slavonic-Russian (or Slavic-Russian) language” was also common. This name emphasized the unity of the ancient “Slavonic” (Slavic) and modern Russian languages ​​and the continuity of the second in relation to the first. There was no sufficiently strict distinction between the concepts “Slavonic” and “Slavonic-Russian”, but if “Slavonic” was usually called the ancient language, then “Slavonic-Russian” meant not only the ancient language, but also those varieties of the modern literary language that were emphatically oriented toward preserving the bookish language. Slavic traditions, represented an attempt to combine old and new in a literary language, relying primarily on the old.

The positions expressed by Trediakovsky were of great theoretical significance for their time. This especially applies to the principle of relying on spoken language, on living use. It should, however, be borne in mind that Trediakovsky proposed focusing not on the spoken language in general, but only on the spoken language of the “noble class.” In his “Speech on the Purity of the Russian Language” he said: “The court of Her Majesty will decorate it (that is, the Russian language) in us, in the word most courteous and magnificent with wealth and radiance. Her most prudent ministers and wise clergy will teach us how to speak and write them skillfully, many of whom, known to you and to me, are such that we could take them as a ruling rule in grammar and as a most beautiful example in rhetoric. The most noble and most skillful noble class will teach us. It will be confirmed to us by our own reasoning about it and the perceived use from all reasonable ones: a general, red and written custom cannot be based not on reason, although no matter how the use is confirmed, without an exact idea about the use.” Of course, “her majesty’s court”, “her most prudent ministers and wise clergy leaders” are mentioned here mainly for the sake of etiquette, but the “noble class” and “use from all reasonable”, i.e. educated, having “an idea of ​​\u200b\u200buse”, - these are quite real factors that Trediakovsky has in mind. Thus, he orients the literary language towards the “living use” of the educated nobility. Despite its social limitations, for that time it was a progressive principle, since it rejected the archaic “Slavic” language and established the modern spoken language (albeit in a limited scope) as the basis of the literary language.

But Trediakovsky’s progressive theoretical principles received almost no practical implementation in his own early literary works. Thus, the language of “A Trip to the Island of Love” is ponderous, contains quite a few bureaucratic words, is not free from Church Slavonicisms, is replete with cumbersome syntactic constructions and is generally far from “living use.” This is what the beginning of the novel looks like in Trediakovsky’s translation:

I think it is just, my dear Lshchida, to send you news about me, and after my absence for a whole year, in order to finally free you from the impatient restlessness into which ignorance about my condition has brought you. I have been to many foreign lands since I separated from you. But I can’t assure you in the state in which I now find myself, that I will have enough strength to describe my path to you. This will further increase my present misfortune if I need to restore to my memory that which has already passed, and this will also not increase my illness, if I need to think about these luxuries, of which I have no more than a bitter memory left.

In a later period of his activity, dating back to Lomonosov’s time, Trediakovsky began to lean towards the “Slavonic” language as the basis of the Russian literary language. According to V.V. Vinogradov, this was the result of the influence of public; sentiments of the 40s - 50s of the 18th century, when protests against the passion for Western European languages ​​began to be heard more and more loudly. In the “Prediction of the Iroic Pim” Trediakovsky wrote: “Why should we voluntarily endure French poverty and cramped conditions, having all kinds of wealth and Slavic-Russian space?”

For all the contradictory nature of Trediakovsky’s literary work, there were undoubted successes in it. It is known, for example, that Pushkin highly valued some passages of Tilemakhida, especially the verse, which Delvig also considered an example of a beautiful hexameter:

The ship of the Odysseans, dividing the waves by running, left the eyes and disappeared.

List of used literature

1. Gorshkov A.I. Theory and history of the Russian literary language: textbook. allowance. – M.: Higher. school, 1984. – 319 p.

Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir (1708–1744) is the first Russian poet of the new European type, the first Russian poet-educator. His activities are in many ways parallel to the activities of his contemporaries - Trediakovsky and Lomonosov. All three expressed in literature the most progressive tendencies of the legacy of Peter the Great's reform era. Kantemir's satire historically corresponds to those odes of Lomonosov, which are devoted to the main theme of his poetry, the theme of enlightenment and progressive civilized statehood, and his historical and literary works and translations from the ancients are parallel to the philological works of Trediakovsky. But, on the other hand, Kantemir is more closely connected than Lomonosov with the previous stage of development of Russian culture: he remained faithful to the old syllabic verse, and his poetry represents, from the side of versification, a brilliant completion of the one and a half century history of verse poetry: he is a student, follower and ally of Theophanes Prokopovich.

Life. Cantemira. The poet's father, the Moldavian ruler, Prince Dmitry Cantemir, conceived the idea of ​​tearing Moldova away from Turkey and annexing it to Russia. When Peter appeared on the Prut, Cantemir went over to him with several thousand noble subjects; the failure of the Prut campaign destroyed their bold political plan, but Peter managed in negotiations with the Grand Vizier to negotiate the free exit of his supporters to Russia. So, in 1711 the Kantemirov family left for Russia. Antiochus was then 3 years old.

Dmitry Cantemir was one of the most educated people of his time. The History of the Ottoman Empire, written by him in Latin, was known throughout learned Europe. The spoken language in the family was Italian (then common among the Balkan and Levantine intelligentsia) and Modern Greek (Antiochus's mother, Cassandra Cantacuzene, came from an aristocratic Greek family), but in Russia the family quickly Russified, and young Antiochus was taught Slavic and Russian. His teacher Ivan Ilyinsky, a talented student of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, passed on to him the tradition of syllabic poetry. The brilliant education that Antiochus received also included the sciences of nature: he listened to lectures by St. Petersburg academicians. In 1729, young Cantemir entered public and literary life. He joins the “Scientific Squad”, which united several enlightened and progressive figures; it included Feofan and Tatishchev. Feofan’s powerful personality left a stamp on all the activities of the “Scientific Squad”. Kantemir, whose first poems in terms of the quality of the verse were no better than the verses of the students of Simeon of Polotsk, now learns from Feofan a new texture of the verse and says about the previous verses (Sylvester Medvedev, Fyodor Polikarpov, etc.) that they “creaked like doors not greased with ham (i.e. lard).” In 1729, Cantemir wrote his first satire, “To His Godfather,” with the significant subtitle “on those who blaspheme the teaching,” by which are meant not abstract “ignoramuses” or “enemies of the sciences,” but various enemies of the “Learned Squad,” i.e. representatives and leaders of the church reaction, precisely in this year of 1729, acted especially boldly, striving for the overthrow of Theophan, the restoration of the patriarchate, the expulsion of foreigners and, in general, the abolition of Peter’s reforms. That the satire was an apology specifically for the “Learned Squad” is evident from Feofan’s poem that has come down to us, in which he congratulates the brave satirist and urges him to continue to throw thunder “at those who do not love the Learned Squad.” The satire was a success; in the manuscript it quickly went from hand to hand; Feofan himself vigorously distributed the lists. In essence, satire has become a semi-legal work. The militant nature of the educational activities of the young Cantemir is clear from the role that he, along with other members of the “Scientific Squad,” played in 1730 in restoring Anna Ivanovna’s autocracy. If it were not for Feofan, Kantemir and Tatishchev in the decisive days, when the leaders were close to realizing their plans, the Moscow nobility would have been left without leaders. It owes its victory to the three of them. Feofan corresponded with Anna when she was still in Mitau and promised her his support; Tatishchev read the first counter-project of the nobility, and Kantemir read the famous second counter-project, which was followed by the “tearing” of the Mitavian “standards”. It would seem that after the restoration of autocracy, the leaders of the “Scientific Squad” were supposed to occupy decisive positions and give direction to the new reign. However, something different happened. Theophanes won no more than the right not to fear execution or exile to a monastery, and Kantemir was denied the post of president of the Academy of Sciences, although he was then the only person who was fully suitable for this position. During the first 5–6 years of its existence, the Academy poorly lived up to the hopes Peter placed on it. It was a person like Cantemir, an enthusiast of the civilizing idea, who would give the work of the Academy the right direction. But in 1730 it was not the enlighteners who won, and Cantemir and his friends were shown their place. In this regard, it becomes clear that Cantemir’s appointment as envoy to London was not his share in the division of political spoils that went to the victors (as pre-revolutionary science incorrectly portrayed the matter), but an honorable exile.

Kantemir never had to return to Russia. For six years (1732–1738) he was envoy in London, for six years (1738–1744) envoy in Paris. He turned out to be an excellent diplomat. In his person, English and French government circles saw for the first time a European-educated Russian person, which played a role in the moral, so to speak, recognition of the new Russia. Often his position was difficult and delicate, especially in Paris, when he had to explain and justify the St. Petersburg government “changes.” Cantemir's diplomatic skill was especially brilliant during the Russian-Swedish war in 1740–1741; the French government barely hid its sympathy for the Swedes and harmed Russia in every possible way; it was necessary to monitor these intrigues, skillfully paralyze them, but at the same time not break with the Parisian cabinet; here “secularism”, which in the 18th century was inseparable from the profession of diplomat, came in handy for Kantemir. Moreover, both in London and Paris it was necessary to fight the continuous desire of the Western powers to exclude Russia from the game, the unexpected strengthening of which was confusing the usual chessboard of European diplomacy. Cantemir the diplomat played a role here that can rightfully be called historical. His reports to his government, brilliant in language and clarity of presentation, are one of the main sources for the study of international history of the 1730s and 1740s*.

* See: Maikov L.N. Materials for the biography of Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903.

Kantemir devoted his leisure time to continuous scientific and literary work. In London he followed the discoveries of new English physics; in the natural sciences he stands at the level of advanced European thought of his time. In Paris he meets Montesquieu; his reserved attitude towards Voltaire speaks of the independence of his assessments. In London, and partly in Paris, he lives in a circle of educated people, diplomats, singers, musicians and poets (including Italians, such as his teacher in Italian literature, Rolli). Perhaps the influence of French and Italian versification is due to the fact that Kantemir was not convinced by the reform of versification carried out by Trediakovsky, and even by the first odes of Lomonosov; he not only continued to write syllabic poetry, but even compiled under the title “Letter of Chariton Mackentin”* a kind of textbook on syllabic versification, albeit somewhat improved. Cantemir did a tremendous job of translating Anacreon and Horace. He reworks his old satires abroad; the new satyrs (VI, VII and VIII) are distinguished by a more moderate character than the militant, passionate satyrs of 1729–1731. In general, Cantemir’s activities abroad, still educational, took on the character of scientific, philological, and philosophical enlightenment; the lesson of 1731 made him humble; he has realized his powerlessness and is coming to terms with the limits of possible activity that were clearly and crudely indicated to him. As for his satires, despite the important post of the author, they remained in the position of semi-legal works circulating around the country in lists. Five years after the poet's death, his friend Abbot Guasco published them in London (1749) in a French prose translation: reviews of this edition are unknown, but obviously it was a success if a reprint was immediately required (1750). There was also a German translation from this French translation. The name of Cantemir gained European fame, but his satires were still not published in Russia. Only in 1762 could Barkov finally publish them (very poorly)**. This was far from an accidental literary fate of the first talented Russian poet-educator.

* The name "Chariton Mackentin" is made up of the letters of the name "Antiochus Cantemir".

** Even in the first half of the 19th century, Cantemir’s satires were known only in this distorted Barkian text. They were known in this form by Zhukovsky, who in 1810 published the article “On Satire and Satires of Cantemir,” in which he “resurrected” the 18th-century poet, and also by Belinsky, who rated Cantemir extremely highly. Only in 1867–1868. A two-volume edition of “Works, Letters and Selected Translations of the Book” was published. HELL. Kantemir" ed. P.A. Efremov, with a detailed and still significant article by V.Ya. Stoyunina. In this publication, the original text of Cantemir's satires was published for the first time, and many of his poetic translations were also published for the first time. An indication of Cantemir’s translation of the history of Justin with a preface by the translator and his own article about Justin, as well as the publication of two poems by Cantemir, is contained in the article by V. Druzhinin “Three unknown works of the book. A. Cantemir" (Journal of Min. Nar. Project., 1887, December). The work of T.M. also contains significant textual research. Glagoleva “Materials for the complete works of A. Kantemir” (Izvestia of the department of Russian languages ​​and words of the Academy of Sciences, 1906, books 1 and 2). In particular, in the same article by T.M. Glagoleva suggests that Kantemir owns the large poem “On a Quiet Life”, the satire “On Zoila”, the translation of Boileau’s satires, etc. and publishes the very text of these works. Not all of these assumptions by T. Glagoleva are equally convincing, but in any case they raise before science the question of expanding the number of Cantemir’s works.

Satires of Cantemir. Satires occupy the main place in Cantemir’s literary heritage. There are only nine of them: five written before going abroad (1729–1731) and then (1736–1737) revised in London and three satires (VI, VII, VIII), conceived and written in Paris (1738–1739). The so-called IX satire, known only from one faulty list, not included in any of the old editions and published only in 1858*, is named so conventionally; in terms of themes (especially close to the themes of Theophan’s sermons), in terms of language, style, and verse, it undoubtedly must be classified in the first group and dated back to 1731. Cantemir did not have time to rework this satire, one of the most meaningful, abroad.

*Printed by N.S. Tikhonravov in “Bibliographic Notes” No. 3, 1858.

The construction of Cantemir's satires is usually uniform. After the introduction (which most often represents an appeal, for example, to his mind, to Theophan, to the muse, to the sun, etc.), Cantemir immediately moves on to living examples, which, following one after another, make up a gallery of literary portraits, connected almost without transitions in a simple order of links. Hence the double title typical of Cantemir; the first defines the address that provides the frame for the entire satire; the second relates to the criteria by which the satirical portraits were selected. So, for example, “To your own mind (to those who blaspheme the teaching)”; “To the Archbishop of Novgorod (about the difference in human passions)”; “To the sun (to the state of this light)”; “To Prince N.Yu. Trubetskoy (about education),” etc. Usually the purely formal meaning of the address is striking; in weaker satires it is reduced to the level of a simple literary pretext; but even in such a classical satire as the third, the question asked of Theophanes in the introduction (what explains the endless diversity and dissimilarity of human passions?), a question of a philosophical order, remains unanswered and, therefore, was posed only compositionally. The real content of this brilliant satire is a chain of portraits of people obsessed with different passions.

The inconsistency of the framework of construction and portrait-satirical content expresses the dual literary origin of Cantemir’s satires. He learned construction from Boileau. The appeal to one’s own mind in satire I clearly goes back to Boileau’s IX satire “A son esprit” (1667), the appeal to Theophanes (in satire III) - to Boileau’s satire II “A Moliere” (1664). Meanwhile, the portraits themselves are only distantly connected with Boileau; they belong to the majority of Russian life, at the same time continuing the satirical gallery outlined both in Theophan’s sermons and in Western literature; they correspond to a later stage than Boileau (and for Cantemir contemporary to him) in the development of European satire. The portrait gallery method, for example, is predominant in Cantemir, and is almost never found in Boileau, but is constantly used in La Bruyère’s “Characters” (1687), a wonderful book representing the transitional stage from classicism to the Enlightenment of the 18th century. The conventional names of the heroes in Cantemir's satires (Chrysippus, Clearchus, Longinus, Ircanus, Medorus, Crito, Titius, etc.) were also invented based on the names of La Bruyère (and sometimes taken directly from him). Moreover, Cantemir knows that new moralistic literature of the English model, which at the beginning of the 18th century was one of the most advanced phenomena in European literature. He did not know English (before the London period), but in his diary of 1728 he named “The New French Spectator”, “The Misanthrope” (volume II) and “The Modern Mentor”, i.e., obviously, French moralistic magazines that arose modeled on the famous “Spectator” by Style and Addison. However, even without this precise indication of Cantemir’s awareness of the latest Western moral and educational literature, we would have the scientific right to doubt the validity of the traditional point of view linking Cantemir with Boileau (and with the Roman satirists). This point of view arose only because researchers, based on the poetic form of Cantemir’s satires (indeed, going back to the model of Boileau’s satires) and from some individual places representing the transcription of the famous passages of Boileau (or Juvenal), did not pay attention to more important circumstances: first, Boileau is not a contemporary of Cantemir; he died in 1715; for Cantemir’s generation he is no longer a living literary fact, but an indisputable “model”, long ago canonized and equated with the Roman classics of satire; secondly, Cantemir’s satires differ from Boileau’s satires precisely in that feature that brings Cantemir closer precisely to Style, Addison and their continental followers; in contrast to Boileau, Kantemir is overwhelmed by the pathos of the literary struggle for a real improvement in Russian life; he wants to really promote the enlightenment and civic education of the Russian people, just as the British, the successors of the bourgeois revolution of the 1640s, sought to discredit the aristocracy, paralyze its corrupting influence on the morals of the bourgeoisie and the philistinism, in which they achieved significant success; Moreover, in the Russian conditions of the 1730s, Cantemir also strives. Cantemir’s satires, therefore, are not only chronologically, but also historically contemporary with the pan-European process of development of bourgeois moralism, i.e. belong to the most advanced phenomenon in European culture of the first half of the 18th century. In this regard, Cantemir is the first Russian representative of a trend typical of Europe, the trend of Addison and early Voltaire, a directly reformist trend and, therefore, far ahead of the depiction of the universal “flaws of humanity,” the usual theme of Boileau’s satires.

Belinsky said in 1845 that “from time to time, turning around old Cantemir and reading one of his satires is a true pleasure.” Belinsky said that Cantemir would outlive many literary celebrities, classical and romantic. This opinion and this prediction came true. The modern reader feels in Cantemir a person for whom the talented depiction of what exists, the morals and vices of his time, is always subordinated to the higher goal of the struggle for the best and preaching the best, feels, in other words, the pathos of enlightenment and clearly distinguishes the stamp of a personality that has not been erased to this day. Meanwhile, what degree of philological specialization is needed to distinguish the personality of the old Virsch poets, even such as Simeon of Polotsk! This means that Kantemir, the first Russian writer in the modern sense of the word, justifies the custom established by Belinsky and which has become a tradition of starting a review of new Russian literature with Kantemir (although this is not entirely accurate from the point of view of the history of Russian literary styles). In an article about Kantemir (1845), Belinsky wrote: “Kantemir not so much begins the history of Russian literature as ends the period of Russian writing. Cantemir wrote in so-called syllabic verses - a meter that is completely unusual for the Russian language; this meter existed in Rus' long before Cantemir... Cantemir was the first to write poetry, also in syllabic meter, but the content, character and purpose of his poems were already completely "different than his predecessors in the poetic field. Kantemir began the history of secular Russian literature. That is why everyone, rightly considering Lomonosov the father of Russian literature, at the same time, not entirely without reason, begins its history with Kantemir."

Cantemir has, first of all, the gift of literary vision. He sees the gestures, skills, actions, characters of the people he portrays. In Satire III there is a wonderful portrait of the disinterested gossip, the bearer of news, Menander. In the morning he has been jostling among people to be the first to find out what new decree came out, what the messenger brought from Persia, or simply who is getting married, who lost, who died:

When Melanders has plenty of novelties,

The recently poured new wine into the vessel

It boils, hisses, the hoop tears, the boards blow,

It will knock out the bushing, flowing out fiercely from its mouth.

The portrait was painted so talentedly that even now you can see the Moscow gossip of the 1730s and hear the intonations of his speech. But Cantemir doesn’t just show off the sharpness of his pen. Above all the satyrs taken together, there hovers one image, which remains unnamed, partly outlined in satire VI, the image of a person who takes seriously the purpose of human life and finds this purpose in fulfilling his duty to society. The creation of this image through the opposite images of stupid, vicious and despicable people is Cantemir’s greatest moral and educational merit. All his satires are also imbued with a general feeling of moral grief about the low level of dignity and morality of the poet's contemporaries. In other cases, the pain for people who have lost the image of a person inspires the satirist with such striking episodes, such as, for example, the picture of city residents who got drunk en masse on St. Nicholas Day, on the streets of which hundreds of imaginary, ruddy-faced corpses lie side by side (in satire V). Indignation and pain are inspired by the attack against the Academy of Sciences (in the so-called IX satire), whose members, having forgotten why Peter conceived the establishment of the Academy, are busy observing the ceremonies of academic life, and not disseminating serious sciences in the country that hospitably sheltered them.

These features are common to more or less all satires, but a careful study shows that each individual satire of Cantemir is always associated with a certain moment in the history of the country, with the state of affairs at that very moment, due to which the poet’s general educational ideas (the struggle for science, for increasing the number enlightened and civically honest people) never turn into an abstract scheme. Each of Cantemir's satires (especially the first five, written before going abroad) is a historical document of the real political struggle of his time; Cantemir’s satires contain sharp attacks against certain individuals, representatives of a party hostile to progress: for example, in the notes to the first satire, Cantemir himself indicated that the image of a bishop in it is a portrait of Bishop Georgy Dashkov, the leader of the church reaction in the late 1720s; This is how it is drawn by Cantemir:

Do you want to be a bishop? Get into your cassock.

On top of that, the body is proudly striped

Let him cover it, hang the gold chain around his neck,

Cover your head with a hood, your belly with a beard,

They led the stick in great style to carry it before them,

In the carriage, bloated, when the heart is angry

It bursts, bless everyone left and right;

Everyone in this world must know you as an archpastor

Signs to reverently call him father.

What's in science? What good will it do to the church?

Some people, while writing a sermon, will forget the notes,

Why is it harmful to income? and the churches are right in them

The best are founded, and the whole church is glory.

Belinsky wrote about Cantemir (1845):

.. “The content of his satires is an expression of indignation or ridicule caused by the enemies of Peter’s reform. There were two kinds of these enemies: adherents of antiquity, who did not want to accept the ideas of the great transformer at all, and senseless followers of novelty, who poorly or even incorrectly understood the nature of the transformation. Cantemir mainly arms himself against the former; however, he also has evil tricks against the latter.”

Cantemir's first satire (1729) was directed, as we have already seen, against the reaction, which was close to victory; a year ago she managed to obtain permission to publish Stefan Yavorsky’s “Stone of Faith,” which was once banned under Peter; Feofan and his group clearly saw the danger threatening them. The young poet's satire was unexpected help from the outside. From Feofan’s poetic compliment it is clear how grateful the entire “Learned Squad” was to the satirist; it is also clear (“spit on their thunderstorms”) how irritated the church party was. Two months later, the second satire was written (and also went through hands), representing the defense of the new ruling group put forward by Peter’s reforms. Kantemir defends in it Peter's point of view on the nobility as a class that once arose from the merits of its ancestors and therefore is accessible to continuous renewal through the introduction of new people into it, distinguished by new merits. A well-born nobleman who is unkind to new people denies, therefore, his own right to nobility, because his ancestors were once new people. The train of thought in this satire anticipates Sumarokov’s future social philosophy (justification of the nobility by merit). In the situation of 1729, the author's civic courage is obvious: it was not without reason that the second satire also became a semi-legal pamphlet. The portrait of an empty-headed descendant of noble and once honored ancestors is brilliantly written:

The rooster crowed, the dawn rose, the rays illuminated

The suns are the tops of the mountains; then the army was withdrawn

Your ancestors are on the field, and you are under the brocade

Deepened softly in the down with body and soul,

You sniffle menacingly (sleep) until two days pass by,

He yawned, opened his eyes, slept to his heart's content,

You've been dragging on for an hour or two, basking, waiting

The swill that India sends or is brought from China.

The floor is beaten up and a lot of chalk has been rubbed under the shoe.

You’ll take over the village and then you’ll kiss it all over yourself.

Not so much became the people of the Romans decently

Based on how to choose color and brocade and slim

Sew a caftan according to the rules of panache and fashion.

In the interval between the writing of the second and third satire, political events took place in the 1730s, i.e. restoration of Anna Ivanovna's autocracy. Now the position of the “Scientific Squad” has undoubtedly become easier, the immediate danger has been eliminated. A turn in Kantemir’s activities is connected with this. He writes satirical fables, full of evil allusions to the failed plans of the rulers; in one of them, he advises Theophanes to mercilessly complete the work he has started and destroy the threat of a new possible noble reaction. In the unfinished poem “Petrida” (1730), Cantemir apparently wanted to paint an idealized image of Peter as an example of a brave reformer and public figure, opposite the heroes of his satires. Here he is the successor of Theophan, whose sermons were the beginning of the theme of Peter in Russian literature. Apparently, in conversations with Feofan, a large program of scientific and literary enlightenment was developed. A monument to the first is the translation of Fontenelle’s treatise (1730), and the dedication of the third satire specifically to Theophanes testifies to the coordination of the actions of both friends. But the relatively favorable change in the situation resulted in the fact that III satire is, rather, a picture of morals; it is closest to La Bruyère’s “Characters”, and there are comparatively fewer local Russian features in it. Apparently, Cantemir, inspired by the victory over the rulers, at this moment believes in the possibility of moral enlightenment. In terms of the art of painting portraits (of a stingy person, a gossip, an empty-headed fashionista, etc.) III satire (especially in foreign adaptation) is the best of all that Cantemir has written so far. Each portrait takes on average 30–40 verses; but such relatively long portraits are skillfully interspersed with short ones, such as, for example, the famous two poems about a fashionable woman:

Nastya is blushing, white with her labors,

Her beauty lies in a casket behind the keys.

In satire IV (the title of which is “To His Muse” and the opening formula: an ironic invitation to the muse - to stop writing satires - deliberately remind the reader of one of Boileau’s most famous satires) there are again hints of “many” who “don’t like” his satires, and then a chain of portraits of these dissatisfied people, for example, the Old Believer Nikon, who writes an accusation against the satirist for undermining religion, or officials who deny the author justice (in a lawsuit about an inheritance, in which he was undoubtedly right) out of revenge for attacks on official morals. Some unknown to us, but real facts are felt in bitter words:

He who has the impudence to beat everyone often lives beaten,

And the poems that put laughter on the lips of the readers,

Obviously, the illusions of 1730 quickly dissipated, and Cantemir realized that the evil lay deeper than the minor differences between the regime of Peter II and the regime of Anna Ivanovna and that it was not the group of serious supporters of education and reform that benefited from the restoration of autocracy, V satire (later revised abroad beyond recognition) in the 1731 edition is perhaps the least interesting of all; this is an adaptation of Boileau’s famous satire “On Man”; Cantemir probably wrote it as a simple exercise in a high satirical style. His real views on Russian life and the real depth of civil pain for the low level of Russian morals are evidenced by the so-called IX satire, but in fact VI, unfinished and not revised abroad: trade is based on deception; a merchant of a respectable appearance, so zealous for church services , that “The whole floor will make everyone tremble as he bows,” you see, tomorrow he’s in prison for fraud; a merchant, a priest, an official differs only in the ways of their dishonesty; everyone talks about God, everyone deep down believes in profit. The satire was written by a man who , observing Russian life, I experienced a feeling close to horror:

What can we say about our internecine life?

How do we live towards each other in every evil matter?

Then the eyes darken, the head spins,

A hand with a feather stings (out of pity), like a chicken wanders.

It is not for nothing that the satire is contemporary with the events in Kantemir’s life, which showed him that he, Feofan and Tatishchev were removed from the real management of affairs (refusal of appointment as president of the Academy of Sciences, polite exile to London).

Abroad, there was a six-year break (1732–1738) in work on satires, explained by complex diplomatic responsibilities and enormous work of a scientific nature (study of the ancients, acquaintance with English culture, study of new physics). When Cantemir returns to satirical poetry, he will no longer be the same person as in 1729–1731. The former ideal of active enlightenment is now being replaced by an ideal of a more armchair nature, the ideal of a sage who fights not to correct the world, but to protect his own soul from petty passions that degrade a person and to enlighten his own mind. It is not for nothing that the VI satire (it is also the first foreign one) is entitled: “On true bliss.” The new ideal is also quite high, but it is the ideal of a moral oasis among the evil reigning in the world:

He is only blessed in this life who is satisfied with little,

Knows to live in silence, from vain freedoms

Thoughts that torment others and trample reliability

The path of virtue is inevitable towards the end.

Your own small house, built on your own field,

Something gives what the moderate will needs...

Wherever away from the noise, everything else all the time

To see off the Greeks and Latins between the dead,

Investigating the effects and causes of all things... -

All my extreme desires are...

Thus, the old formula of Horace (beatus ille que...) received (for the first time in Russian literature) a new meaning; it became an expression of the ideal of an enlightened armchair refuge from the evil that reigns all around.

The lowering of political tension in Cantemir's thought is undeniable. It was a direct consequence of the political defeat of the group to which he belonged. Three foreign satires are, rather, moral and philosophical discussions (for example, the VII satire “On Education”). Yet a complete break with the past has not occurred if Cantemir reworks his old satires. This second edition is literary, of course, incomparably higher than the first, but other features that were outdated for Cantemir 7-8 years ago have been eliminated. Cantemir's work clearly distinguishes, thus, two distinctly dissimilar periods.

The significance of Kantemir's satires for the development of Russian literature was very great. Even Karamzin, calling Kantemir “our Juvenal,” remarked: “His satires were the first experience of Russian wit and style”*. Belinsky, in an article about Cantemir (1845), emphasizing the progressive significance of the “satirical trend” in Russian literature, points to Cantemir as its founder.

Attention should be paid to an essential circumstance: the satirical images created by Kantemir remained to live for a long time in Russian literature: we will meet dandies-petimeters, wild landowners, ignoramuses, fanatical superstitions, etc., depicted by Kantemir, both in Sumarokov’s satires and in comedies by the same Sumarokov, and by Fonvizin, and in satirical journalism of the 18th century; These images did not die at the beginning of the 19th century, and even in Griboyedov and Gogol we will find echoes of Cantemir’s satirical themes.

In comparison with satyrs, Cantemir’s other poetic works recede into the background. But a careful analysis also reveals in them a decisive turning point between the first, militant, and second, cultural and educational periods of his activity. In Russia, he writes a number of caustic epigrams (ten in total), witty fables, which in fact are political epigrams against the leaders, a political message to Theophan, in which (in an encrypted pastoral form) convinces him of the fragility of the church reaction of 1729, translates psalms (in the XVIII century, transcriptions of psalms often played the role of philosophical and political lyrics, especially if psalms were transposed that spoke of the pride of the strong or of faith, the refuge of a person humiliated by powerful enemies). All lyric poems of 1729–1731. reflect the political situation of these years and are full of allusions to events and persons (especially fables): this is -. documents of the era. We must remember that the unfinished poem “Petrida” also dates back to this time (1730); the connection of this poem with the image of Peter by Feofan is undoubted, just as the direct political significance of the image of Peter by all the figures of the “Scientific Squad” is undeniable. Kantemir's lyrics from the foreign period are of a different nature. In 1735 (in London) he wrote four odes (in his terminology, “songs”); the most interesting is the 4th: “In praise of the sciences”; it represents the glorification of the beneficent power of the sciences that once illuminated Egypt, then moving to the west, Greece, Rome, then, after a break in the Middle Ages, reviving in Italy, they began to move in the opposite direction, from west to east. This concept of “wandering muses” was widespread in Europe during the era of classicism (Lomonosov’s best ode of 1747, glorifying “silence” and the upcoming exploits of the muses invited by Peter to Russia, is based on it). This ode to Cantemir, no matter how high the civilizing pathos that animates it, clearly corresponds to the second, weakened period of his educational activity. Let us also note that all four of Cantemir’s odes were written in the Horatian genre (and not in the “Pindaric” genre of Lomonosov’s solemn odes), like many of Trediakovsky’s odes (this genre would be continued by Sumarokov and, later, Derzhavin).

Translations by Cantemir. The difference between the two periods is also noticeable in Cantemir’s scientific works. A monument to the first active militant period is the translation of Fontenelle's book (1730), clearly directed against the church teaching about the universe, based on the Ptolemaic picture of the world *. Scientific and scientific-literary works of recent years are of a different nature; These are cultural and educational works, works on the history of literature, versification, and poetic translations of the ancients.

* See: Raikov V. E. Essays on the history of the heliocentric worldview in Russia. L., 1937.

As already mentioned, in 1730 Cantemir, wanting to promote the dissemination of the Copernican system, translated Fontenelle’s not-so-new treatise “On the Plurality of Worlds.” The Copernican theory was already known in Russia by that time. Back in 1717, Peter ordered the publication of the book “Worldviews” by the Dutch scientist Huygens. But Cantemir returns to Fontenelle’s older book, because he is now concerned not so much with the growth of science as with the dissemination of its conclusions, and Fontenelle’s book was rightly considered a brilliant example of scientific popularization. It was Fontenelle who dealt the death blow to the astronomy of Aristotle and Ptolemy in the eyes of the general educated public. In Russian conditions in 1730, Cantemir’s translation would have been a blow to the Old Church party; we say “it would have been,” because the publication did not take place. The Academy got scared and demanded double censorship, secular and spiritual. The matter dragged on, especially since Cantemir could only bother about his book from afar. Only in 1740, it came out with an ironic indication that the translation was made “in Moscow in 1730.” With his translation, Kantemir laid the foundation for Russian popular science literature. The book was widely read, but soon, in 1756, the synod managed to achieve the confiscation of the book and the destruction of the circulation. Cantemir's merit in spreading the heliocentric teaching is sufficiently measured by the strength of this posthumous hatred of his work*.

* There is information about Cantemir’s translation of Montesquieu’s “Persian Letters”. The translation has not reached us.

In London and Paris, in connection with the general transition to scientific and educational enlightenment already known to us, the nature of his works noticeably changes. He becomes a learned philologist. His works in this area, together with the simultaneous first scientific works of Trediakovsky, form a new era in the history of Russian philological culture, the third, if the first is considered the scholastic culture of the old theological school of the 16th–17th centuries (grammar, rhetoric, literature, school study of the ancients), and the second - translations from the ancients under Peter. What was new here was a completely European level of philological knowledge. Thus, when translating Horace’s messages, Cantemir takes into account the current state of science (textual criticism, understanding of difficult passages, context, etc.). The first Russian example of a textual and stylistically cultural translation of an ancient author is an integral merit of Kantemir. The approximate contemporaneity of these works with translations from the ancient Trediakovsky and early Lomonosov suggests that here we have a new stage in the history of Russian philological culture, although Trediakovsky translates Horace’s odes with rhymes, and Lomonosov’s translations are incomparably higher than Kantemir’s in terms of talent. The same standard of philological accuracy and erudition was laid by Cantemir as the basis for an even earlier poetic translation of 55 odes of Anacreon. The translation, made in London back in 1736, remained unpublished*. In the preface, Cantemir says that he followed the edition of Dacier (which in its time constituted an era in science) and the new English editions of Anacreon. Sharing the general mistake of the science of his time, Cantemir could not have known that most of the so-called odes of Anacreon represent a later stylization; but for European poetry of the 18th century it was not this philological question that mattered; the pseudo-Anacreonian odes provided an example of culturally perfect forms of light poetry; their assimilation gave rise to new “Anacreontic” poetry, which occupied such an important place in the literature of the 18th century (especially in Germany and Russia). However, Cantemir’s translation could not have a direct impact on the development of Russian Anacreontics, because the evil fate that haunted all of Cantemir’s works showed its strength in his Anacreon: the name of the translator was so politically odious that even the most innocent Anacreon waited for publication only in the 19th century; for his contemporaries he disappeared without a trace: the real tradition of Russian anacreontics would be started by Lomonosov and the poets of the Sumarokov group; but Cantemir’s translation is important as an indication of the pattern of that new stage in the assimilation of antiquity, which began in the 1730s. It is no coincidence that this stage is contemporary with the creation of a new verse (the reform of Trediakovsky and Lomonosov), the emergence of civil-educational satire (Kantemir himself) and the emergence of the ode (Lomonosov). All these phenomena taken together indicate the beginning of a new, European period in the history of national Russian culture.

* It was published in the above edition of Cantemir’s works, ed. P.A. Efremova.

Together with Trediakovsky, Kantemir was the first Russian historian of literary culture. This is not immediately apparent only because Cantemir's work in this area is scattered among hundreds of notes to his own satires and to Horace's Epistles. If we discard in them the dirty work of enlightenment, explanations (necessary for the readers of that time) of such words as Hera, Muses, Castalian key, horizon, etc., what remains is a body of knowledge on the history of literature, quite serious, and for the history of satire (in which Kantemir, naturally, was a special expert) with amazing knowledge of the matter. Cantemir quotes, for example, the French satirist Mathurin Regnier (the predecessor of Boileau, forgotten at that time in France), knows the old Italian satirists, and among the Roman satirists he knows very well such difficult poets as Juvenal and Persius. The notes to Horace's "Epistle" (partially published) provided an entire encyclopedia of information about the life of ancient Rome, compiled from the best Western European works of that time; other notes grew into small studies.

Verse and language of Cantemir. Just as all of Cantemir’s philological works correlate with a whole trend in literary scholarship in the 1730s–1740s, so his treatise on poetry entitled “Letter of Chariton Mackentin,” appended to the translation of Horace’s “Epistle,” is understandable only in general connection with the enormous theoretical interest in issues of versification, an interest natural for the literary generation that made the transition from syllabic verse to tonic verse. But unlike other works, Cantemir takes an archaic position on the issue of verse. He was not convinced either by Trediakovsky’s treatise of 1735 or by the example of Lomonosov’s first odes, written in iambic tetrameter. The Letter of Chariton Mackentin sets out a system of syllabic verse. What explains this? Trediakovsky had already thought about this and explained it by the non-Russian origin of Kantemir (as if Medvedev, Barsov, Istomin, Polikarpov and other representatives of virsch poetry in Moscow were not pure Great Russians). It is most accurate to explain Cantemir’s loyalty to the old system, on which his literary youth was brought up, by his stay abroad, his separation from the St. Petersburg disputes of the 1730–1740s around the issue of verse, his separation from the movement that in Russia attracted the new generation to the reform of versification. The Italian and French environment in which Cantemir lived in London and Paris also played a certain role; the example of Italian and French verse inclined him to fidelity to the syllabic system. Nevertheless, having studied Trediakovsky’s treatise on tonic verse (1735), Cantemir introduced into his thirteen-syllable verse a mandatory constant caesura with emphasis on the fifth or seventh syllable of the verse, i.e. made a certain concession to the tonic principle. And since Trediakovsky’s new verse represented only a toned-down old thirteen-syllable syllabic verse, Cantemir’s reformed verse is not as far from it as it seems if we compare the theoretical views of both poets. Cantemir's verse with the introduction of a constant caesura (He is only blessed in this life who is satisfied with little) needs only a slight change in order to be toned down by Trediakovsky's verse.

When reworking all his old five satires abroad, Cantemir completely followed the principle of constant caesura. All this improved his verse, and the accumulated experience, maturity of talent, complete mastery of his art give the second edition such literary advantages that sometimes the same satire seems like a new work. Let us note, however, that the significance of the document of the political struggle of 1729–1731. has, of course, the first edition. Among other interesting provisions of the Letters of Chariton Mackentin, we note the sharp and polemical defense of transference. The corresponding paragraph is entitled by Kantemir: “Transfer is permitted.” Since Trediakovsky does not say a word about transference in his treatise, the polemical edge of Cantemir’s thought is obviously directed against French poetry, in which, after Malherbe and Boileau, the immutable rule of the coincidence of verse with a syntactic unit was established. Meanwhile, Italian poets allowed the transfer. Apparently, in matters of poetry, Cantemir was influenced by his Italian London friends. However, on the issue of transference, Kantemir continues at the same time the old practice of Virsheva Russian poetry, associated with the colloquial nature of Virsheva verse (and in Cantemir himself with the casually conversational nature of the satirical style).

The language of Cantemir’s prose works does not constitute a major stage in the history of Russian prose. Fontenelle's astronomical treatise is translated into a language that differs little from the business prose of Peter the Great's era. Later, numerous diplomatic reports, for which Cantemir had such a perfect model as the language of French diplomacy, were for him a school that taught him to write accurately, concisely and clearly. “The Letter of Chariton Mackentin” is written exemplary in this regard, but this short textbook of poetry, both in size and in the nature of the subject, could not become a decisive example. Only the genius of Lomonosov creates the foundations of the Russian scientific and theoretical language.

An original phenomenon is the language of Cantemir's satyrs. What is striking in them is the free admission of vernacular language to a degree that is approximately the same in the first five satires, and in their foreign adaptation, and in the last 3 satires. Cantemir is not afraid of the most extreme cases of vernacular, which once again proves the incorrectness of the traditional view that elevates his satires to Boileau’s satires: Boileau has no vernacular even in such purely everyday satire as the description of an absurd dinner with an inept owner. Meanwhile, Kantemir has the following verses at every step:

Those who are given more sense lie more...

When better than fresh things does a smart bitch fall in love...

You can't beat them to salted meat with a stick...

Friends in sorrow; I sat down to play cards...

Familiar sayings are constantly introduced (to sculpt peas into the wall; slightly put lipstick on your lips; cabbage soup and the big master of the house; and now the devil can’t live, etc.). Such a widespread introduction of vernacular is a unique case of its kind in Russian poetry of the 18th century. The language of Kantemir the satirist continues in this regard the tradition of the language of Feofan’s sermons. And if you remember how often the heroes of his (early) satires repeat the gallery of portraits in Feofan (these similarities have been repeatedly made by researchers) *, then it becomes clear that Cantemir’s satires represent at the same time the completion of the Russian literary tradition and the beginning of educational literature in the new European sense of the word ( moral magazines of the English type), i.e. represent a natural stage in the development of Russian literature of the 18th century.

* The rapprochement between Kantemir and Feofan was thoroughly substantiated by V.G. Belinsky in an article about Cantemir, 1845

Trediakovsky. The activities of Trediakovsky (1703–1769) are also transitional in nature; In it, too, not all connections with the 17th century are severed. But unlike Kantemir, Trediakovsky proceeds from the entirety of the school-rhetorical culture of the 17th century. Based on it, he found his way to a new philological culture, he became an educator in the new European sense of the word, but until his last works, he, in a certain sense, remained a man of scholastic culture. This is sufficiently evidenced by such a well-known feature of his language, in poetry and prose, as the intricacy of construction, the mixing of Latin figures of speech with the most trivial cases of vernacular, the preference for difficult methods of expression, and schoolboy pedantry. All this created for him a very special position in literature back in the 1750-1760s, made him an easy subject of ridicule and became one of the reasons for the sad, or rather tragic, nature of his biography. Another reason, the main one, is the social fate of the plebeian scientist in the noble monarchy.

Vasily Kirillovich Trediakovsky was born in 1703 in Astrakhan into the family of a priest with average income. By chance, Catholic monks living in Astrakhan at that time taught him Latin. In 1722, Peter was in Astrakhan, Dmitry Cantemir, the father of the satirist, came to pick him up, taking with him his secretary Ivan Ilyinsky (writer, teacher of Antiochus). Conversations with Ilyinsky opened up the world of knowledge to the young man Trediakovsky. He fled to Moscow in 1723, where he studied at the Slavic-Latin Academy for two years. In 1725 he made a second, more daring, escape to science; he goes to The Hague, from where in 1727 he goes to Paris, and here, at the Sorbonne, the best European university of that time, he studies for 3 years. In 1730 he returned (via The Hague) to Russia fully armed with European philological science. In Moscow, he takes a closer look at new phenomena in Russian literature, enthusiastically reads Cantemir’s satires aloud in public, speaks out in an atheistic spirit (if you believe the testimony of the ignorant clergyman Malinovsky), sympathizes with Feofan’s struggle against the Old Church party and calls the priests “Tartuffes” and “bastards”* . It is clear from everything that he brought not only erudition from Paris, but also the program of action of a militant educator. He also considers his just published translation of the allegorical novel “Riding to the Island of Love” (1730) as a demonstratively secular work and is glad that the clergy are angry at this publication. But the same reasons why Cantemir could not become president of the Academy of Sciences in 1731 and was exiled to London in 1732 made the rootless plebeian even more embarrassed. In 1732, he became a full-time translator at the Academy of Sciences, and from that moment came the end of the “turbulent” period of his early activity. Trediakovsky resigned himself. He immerses himself in enormous scientific and literary work, his views change in many ways, and only indirectly will that general oppositional spirit be reflected in his works, which will force him later to choose Fenelon’s “Telemaque” for translation.

* In a letter to Taubert. See: Malein A. New data for the biography of V.K. Trediakovsky // Collection. dept. Russian language and words. Academy of Sciences. T. 101, 1928

Trediakovsky's further biography is difficult to separate from his scientific and literary activities. In 1733 he became acting secretary of the Academy of Sciences. His academic career was extremely unsuccessful, the main reason for which was the conscious effort of German academicians to prevent Russian scientists from entering. Only in 1745 did the transformer of Russian versification become a professor, which at that time was equivalent to the title of academician. But the formal equalization of rights with other academicians did not improve Trediakovsky’s position, and disagreements with the Academy continued until his retirement (1759). In the 1750s, the situation was complicated by the literary struggle with Lomonosov, and soon with Sumarokov and Sumarokov’s students, who found the figure of the erudite philologist incomprehensible and funny. Trediakovsky becomes the target of epigrams and the subject of attacks, sometimes the most rude. He continues to work heroically, but every year his literary loneliness intensifies. In the 1760s, the author of Tilemakhida (1766) was the most isolated figure in Russian literature. Personal disasters (he was burned three times, for example) and need intensified; After retirement, semi-poverty set in. In 1769, the forgotten old man died. What guided him in the cyclopean work on which he devoted his life can best be said in his own dying words (1768): “I confess sincerely that after the truth I value nothing more in my life than service based on honesty and benefit, my venerable compatriots." He was driven by a powerful passion to serve the cause of the founding of Russian literary and scientific culture. He dreamed of a future Russian Sorbonne, which would glorify the name of Russia in science. Becoming the forerunner of this future Sorbonne was the conscious goal of his life. To a large extent, the goal was fulfilled, since out of everything he accomplished, at least two things: the foundation of tonic versification and the creation of the Russian Homeric hexameter are merits of historical significance.

Verse reform. Having united academic translators in the “Russian Collection” (1735), Trediakovsky read a report in which he hinted that he knew a way to reform versification. Indeed, in 1735 his “A Brief and New Method for Composing Russian Poems” was published, in which the principle of tonic is indicated and the main feet are named. The treatise is accompanied by poems written in tonic meter (however, back in 1734 Trediakovsky published tonic poems). This brought about a reform that became a turning point in the history of Russian verse. What explains this reform?

The attempts of some scientists to explain it by the initiative of educated foreigners, like the Swede Sparvenfeldt (Swedish envoy to Moscow in 1683–1686), a highly enlightened linguist, or the Germans Gluck and Paus, have long been refuted. For educated foreigners (Swedes, Danes, Germans, Dutch), it was natural, if fate threw them to Russia, to try to compose Russian poems according to the tonic system familiar to them (many such poems, for example, Paus, have come down to us). But these experiments, which are very interesting in themselves, do not stand in any way in relation to the reform of 1735*. Paus, for example, requires writing in iambics, trochees, amphibrachs, etc., while Trediakovsky proceeds from the long tradition of the old thirteen-syllable syllabic verse. The attempts of other scientists to explain the reform by the gradual degeneration into tonic of the old syllabic verse, in which tonic elements allegedly grew imperceptibly, did not materialize; the tonic verse seemed to arise “by itself”**. This concept disappears both for general methodological reasons and for discrepancies with direct facts: the poems of late syllabics, for example Feofan, are no more “tonic” than the poems of Simeon of Polotsk.

* An attempt to present the theory and practice of Trediakovsky’s new style as borrowing, almost plagiarism, from Gluck and Paus was made by V.N. Peretz - see, his “Historical and Literary Research and Materials”, vol. III, St. Petersburg, 1902.

** This is the point of view of L.I. Timofeev in his book “Problems of Poetry” (Moscow, 1923), however, containing a number of valuable data.

The real reason for the reform is national-historical. The dawn of a new national Russian culture was dawning. The search for the most national forms of verse was natural, and only the tonic system could provide such forms. The fact is that a characteristic feature of Russian speech is its multi-accent (Russian stress can freely fall on any syllable from the end, starting with the first, ending with the third, fourth, fifth, sometimes even the seventh: transition, surprise, quietest, turning over, etc. .). With such accentuated freedom of Russian speech, syllabic verse was not enough verse; it poorly separated poetic speech from prosaic speech. No wonder he sounded relatively good in satire, i.e. in the genre that comes closest to conversational intonation (cf. Cantemir’s satire), but was completely insufficient for odes and poems, i.e. for genres that were destined for special development in the era of classicism. Another thing is languages ​​with constant stress (in French on the last syllable, in Polish on the penultimate); there the syllabic verse is the most national and, on the contrary, the tonic verse impoverishes the sound of speech. It was this rhythmic poverty of Russian syllabic verse that Trediakovsky had in mind when he later called Russian verses not poetry, but “prosaic lines.” Tonic versification was thus created because the literary generation of the 1730s faced the historical task of creating a national poetic culture.

In addition, syllabic verse was primarily the verse of scholastic school culture, and this culture was now giving way to the new culture of a centralized and Europeanized absolute monarchy. The following circumstance is also essential here: the tonic principle was introduced into Russian versification under the influence of folk songs and Russian folklore. Trediakovsky himself more than once pointed out that the study of folk songs inspired him with the idea of ​​​​the decisive role of stress in Russian verse.

In a treatise of 1735 he wrote; “I took all the power of this new Poem (i.e., versification) from the very interior of the property, befitting our verse; and if I would like to know, but I must declare, the poetry of our simple people has brought me to this. It’s a gift that its syllable is not at all Red due to the lack of art of its constituents; but the sweetest, most pleasant and most correct of her various feet... the fall gave me an infallible guide to the introduction... of these two-syllable feet announced above.”

Theoretically, tonic versification was proclaimed in the “Brief and New Method” of 1735, but it does not follow from this that Trediakovsky constructed a truly new verse. Only Lomonosov finally carried out the reform of verse in 1739. The verses appended to the treatise of 1735 are basically just toned-down old verses. Here is a sample of Trediakovsky’s new verse:

Gaul has a lot of glory in this,

What kind of eldest daughter can you rightfully consider?

It is clear that this verse (from a school point of view, a kind of seven-foot trochee) is in fact the same old syllabic thirteen-syllable verse, which has been tonified through the introduction of a uniformly falling stress. A typical Cantemir verse

The path of virtue is inevitable at the end

Now it would sound, say, like this:

The glory of virtue in life is inevitable.

The characteristic limitations of Trediakovsky’s verse reform were expressed in the following features of his theory of 1735: he did not even fundamentally abandon the syllabic system completely; he rejects the possibility of introducing it in poems of short measure (for example, seven- and five-syllables), and the tonic principle proposes to use it only in long poetic lines. Then, he sees the possibility of implementing only one size in the Russian style: trochee, and gives examples only of this. The three-syllable meters proposed by Lomonosov and even the iambic, which later became the main meter of Russian poetry, are not introduced by Trediakovsky either into the theory or practice of that time. Finally, Trediakovsky was unable to overcome the traditions of syllabic poetry on the issue of rhyme; in serious poetry he uses only feminine rhyme, inherited by Russian and Ukrainian syllabists from Polish poetry; a combination of rhymes, i.e. the introduction of a masculine rhyme next to a feminine one, he resolutely rejects. Trediakovsky carried out not a historical revolution, but a semi-reform. It couldn't have been any other way. It was impossible to immediately tear Russian verse away from the century and a half syllabic tradition. A transitional stage was needed, a transitional verse, which is both the conclusion of syllabic poetry and at the same time the beginning of tonic versification. Trediakovsky created this transitional verse. He did not stay in poetry for long, although he was accepted by almost all the school poets of that time known to us (for example, professor of the Kharkov Collegium Vitynsky) and the young poets of the Gentry Corps (Sobakin and young Sumarokov). With the appearance of the first odes of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky's new verse quickly disappears. Trediakovsky alone hopelessly but stubbornly defended his creation, but in most of his poems he also adopted Lomonosov’s iambic tetrameter and Alexandrian verse. Before the new generation of the 1740s and 1750s, he defended even more stubbornly his priority in introducing tonic verse. He revised his old treatise of 1735 for this very purpose and, under the same title, introduced into the first volume of his “Works and Translations” (1752) a completely different work, representing a textbook of the Lomonosov system of versification, a textbook complete and exemplarily accurate. But the attempt to throw into oblivion the old treatise of 1735 and substitute in its place an exposition of the Lomonosov system could not deceive any of the knowledgeable people. In a vain attempt to assert his priority in the reform of versification, Trediakovsky was both right and wrong - formally right, because he was really the first to theoretically establish the principle of tonic, wrong because the real founder of the new versification was the one who created the untonified old, unreformed Virsch verse , but the verse is purely tonic, completely divorced from the heritage of syllabic versification, and this creator was not he, but Lomonosov. Here Trediakovsky’s defeat was irreparable and so complete that the Lomonosov and post-Lomonosov generations forgot what was Trediakovsky’s integral merit, namely the establishment, if not of tonic verse, then of the principle of tonic*.

* In our science, the opinion was expressed that attributing to Lomonosov the honor of carrying out genuine tonic versification is unfounded and that this versification was carried out before him by Trediakovsky, “the founder of tonic verse” (see: Bondi S. M. Trediakovsky, Lomonosov, Sumarokov // Trediakovsky, Poems / Edited by Academician A. S. Orlov, Leningrad, 1935). Meanwhile, the very presentation of the issue given by S.M. Bondi points out precisely that Trediakovsky discovered only the principle of tonic, but did not create a real system of verse, which has triumphed in Russian poetry since Lomonosov’s first experiments. The role of Trediakovsky in the history of Russian verse and his attitude to the syllabic are briefly, but clearly and convincingly characterized in the article by B.V. Tomashevsky “The Problem of Poetic Rhythm” in his book “On Verse”, Leningrad, 1929).

Trediakovsky involuntarily adopted Lomonosov's iambic style; but his metrical thinking, which was ultimately formed on the old long syllabic verse, continued to gravitate toward long verse. His search for new forms of long verse led him to the creation of the hexameter.

Trediakovsky was brought up by French culture, and all his sympathies subsequently belonged to it: it is no coincidence that most of the books he translated were translated from French. He was clearly indifferent to German culture. But on one issue he naturally had to follow the work of German poets, namely the issue of various forms of verse, because in the languages ​​known to Trediakovsky only German agreed with Russian in tonic versification. Lomonosov, under the undoubted influence of Gottsched and the Gottschedians, already wrote hexameters in his youth, several of which have come down to us. Trediakovsky follows the enormous work that the post-Gottshed generation did on the hexameter and other antique metric forms. The beginning of Klopstock's "Messiad" (1747) apparently made a special impression on him, if in the novel "Argenida", the translation of which he is already working on (the entire translation was published in 1751), some poetic inserts are translated in hexameter:

The first Phoebus, they say, fornication with Venus of Mars

I could see: this god is the first to see everything that happens.

In principle (and often due to its brilliant texture) this is the hexameter of Delvig, Gnedich and Zhukovsky. Trediakovsky correctly resolved the question of the nature of the Russian hexameter. He realized that the Russian hexameter should be based not on the length and brevity of syllables (like the ancient one), but on stress, i.e. must be a tonic hexameter. This went down in the history of Russian verse, as well as Trediakovsky’s creation of a hexameter that was not purely dactylic, but dactylo-trochaic. Further, he correctly understood that hexameter, a long verse that does not allow rhymes, must be especially carefully developed in rhythmic and sound terms. Later, in “Tilemakhida” (1760), the very size of the poem (over 15 thousand verses) forced him to pay special attention to the rhythmic diversity and sound organization of the verse. And he achieved such mastery here that Radishchev considered it necessary to devote an entire treatise (“Monument to the Dactylo-trochaic Knight”, 1801) to an analysis of the rhythms and phonetics of the hexameter “Tilemakhida”. Further, Trediakovsky realized that the Russian hexameter is inevitably associated with the ancient (mainly Homeric) style. Many hexameters of “Tilemachida” are an example of the Russian Homeric style: “Everything that swims across the seas is multi-destructive, he shudders...”.

Trediakovsky’s “Tilemakhida” made possible the future Russian “Iliad” by Gnedich and “Odyssey” by Zhukovsky, and Radishchev played a special role in transferring Trediakovsky’s legacy to the 19th century. It is no coincidence that he took a verse from Tilemakhida as the epigraph to “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.”

The attraction to long verse, which led Trediakovsky to the creation of the hexameter , is associated with another feature that distinguishes him from Lomonosov: a clear attraction to narrative poetry. He happened to write both odes and tragedy*, but his main literary works were three translated novels: “Ride to the Island of Love” (1730), “Argenida” (1751) and “Tilemakhida” (1766).

* In 1750, by order of the government, Trediakovsky wrote the tragedy “Detsdamia”; It turned out to be so cumbersome in volume and confusing that it was impossible to stage it on stage. It was published only after Trediakovsky’s death, in 1775.

"Going to Love Island"“Riding to the Island of Love,” a translation of the old (1663) gallant-allegorical novel by Abbot Paul Talman, created a sensation in 1730 (in a letter to Schumacher, Trediakovsky describes the success of his novel), because it was the first printed Russian book conveying subtle love culture developed in French fiction. Trediakovsky’s choice in 1730, when Lesazhev’s last volume “Gilles Blaza” had just been published, is striking in its archaism; his fictional thinking clearly belongs to the long-gone, pre-Les Sage stage of the European novel, but for the Russian reader, who perceived this book against the backdrop of an old Russian story, “Riding” was obviously just what was needed. Moreover, the discontent of the church party indicates that the old novel, which was innocent in itself, in Russian conditions received an educational meaning by the fact that it was a purely secular novel that glorified the sweetness of love and taught all the subtleties of gallant loving behavior.

The archaic nature of Trediakovsky’s fictional tastes is expressed even more clearly in the fact that his main works in translated fiction gave Russia two of the most famous examples of the Western state novel, and this genre for France of the 18th century was already a passed stage in the development of narrative literature - not to mention the chronological late: Barclay's Argenida, translated by Trediakovsky in 1751, was published in 1621, and Tilemakhida (1766) in 1699. Obviously, new forms of the novel, typical specifically for the 18th century, forms corresponding to the rise of bourgeois democracy ( Lesage, Fielding, Richardson), do not exist for Trediakovsky, as well as for Lomonosov, who in paragraph 151 of “Rhetoric” (1748), declaring writing and reading novels a waste of time, makes

Just as all of Cantemir’s philological works correlate with a whole trend in literary science of the 1730-1740s, so his treatise on poetry entitled “Letter of Chariton Mackentin”, attached to the translation of Horace’s “Epistle”, is understandable only in general connection with the enormous theoretical interest in issues of versification, an interest natural for the literary generation that made the transition from syllabic verse to tonic verse. But unlike other works, Cantemir takes an archaic position on the issue of verse. He was not convinced either by Trediakovsky’s treatise of 1735 or by the example of Lomonosov’s first odes, written in iambic tetrameter. The Letter of Chariton Mackentin sets out a system of syllabic verse. What explains this? Trediakovsky had already thought about this and explained it by the non-Russian origin of Kantemir (as if Medvedev, Barsov, Istomin, Polikarpov and other representatives of virsch poetry in Moscow were not pure Great Russians). It is most accurate to explain Cantemir’s loyalty to the old system, on which his literary youth was brought up, by his stay abroad, his separation from the St. Petersburg disputes of the 1730-1740s around the issue of verse, his separation from the movement that in Russia attracted the new generation to the reform of versification. The Italian and French environment in which Cantemir lived in London and Paris also played a certain role; the example of Italian and French verse inclined him to fidelity to the syllabic system. Nevertheless, having studied Trediakovsky’s treatise on tonic verse (1735), Cantemir introduced into his thirteen-syllable verse a mandatory constant caesura with emphasis on the fifth or seventh syllable of the verse, i.e. made a certain concession to the tonic principle. And since Trediakovsky’s new verse represented only a toned-down old thirteen-syllable syllabic verse, Cantemir’s reformed verse is not as far from it as it seems if we compare the theoretical views of both poets. Cantemir's verse with the introduction of a constant caesura (He is only blessed in this life who is satisfied with little) needs only a slight change in order to be toned down by Trediakovsky's verse.

When reworking all his old five satires abroad, Cantemir completely followed the principle of constant caesura. All this improved his verse, and the accumulated experience, maturity of talent, complete mastery of his art give the second edition such literary advantages that sometimes the same satire seems like a new work. Note, however, that the significance of the document of the political struggle of 1729-1731. has, of course, the first edition. Among other interesting provisions of the Letters of Chariton Mackentin, we note the sharp and polemical defense of transference. The corresponding paragraph is entitled by Kantemir: “Transfer is permitted.” Since Trediakovsky does not say a word about transference in his treatise, the polemical edge of Cantemir’s thought is obviously directed against French poetry, in which, after Malherbe and Boileau, the immutable rule of the coincidence of verse with a syntactic unit was established. Meanwhile, Italian poets allowed the transfer. Apparently, in matters of poetry, Cantemir was influenced by his Italian London friends. However, on the issue of transference, Kantemir continues at the same time the old practice of Virsheva Russian poetry, associated with the colloquial nature of Virsheva verse (and in Cantemir himself with the casually conversational nature of the satirical style).

The language of Cantemir’s prose works does not constitute a major stage in the history of Russian prose. Fontenelle's astronomical treatise is translated into a language that differs little from the business prose of Peter the Great's era. Later, numerous diplomatic reports, for which Cantemir had such a perfect model as the language of French diplomacy, were for him a school that taught him to write accurately, concisely and clearly. “The Letter of Chariton Mackentin” is written exemplary in this regard, but this short textbook of poetry, both in size and in the nature of the subject, could not become a decisive example. Only the genius of Lomonosov creates the foundations of the Russian scientific and theoretical language.

An original phenomenon is the language of Cantemir's satyrs. What is striking in them is the free admission of vernacular language to a degree that is approximately the same in the first five satires, and in their foreign adaptation, and in the last 3 satires. Cantemir is not afraid of the most extreme cases of vernacular, which once again proves the incorrectness of the traditional view that elevates his satires to Boileau’s satires: Boileau has no vernacular even in such purely everyday satire as the description of an absurd dinner with an inept owner. Meanwhile, Kantemir has the following verses at every step:

Those who are given more sense lie more...

...When a smart bitch falls in love with something fresher than something fresh...

...You can’t beat them to salted meat with a stick...

...Friends in sadness; I sat down to play cards...

Familiar sayings are constantly introduced (to sculpt peas into the wall; slightly put lipstick on your lips; cabbage soup and the big master of the house; and now the devil can’t live, etc.). Such a widespread introduction of vernacular is a unique case of its kind in Russian poetry of the 18th century. The language of Kantemir the satirist continues in this regard the tradition of the language of Feofan’s sermons. And if you remember how often the heroes of his (early) satires repeat the gallery of portraits in Feofan (these similarities have been repeatedly made by researchers), then it becomes clear that Cantemir’s satires represent at the same time the completion of the domestic literary tradition and the beginning of educational literature in the new European sense of the word (moral English-style magazines), i.e. represent a natural stage in the development of Russian literature of the 18th century.

Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir

The liberation of Russian culture from the tutelage and intervention of the church was one of the most important results of the transformative activities of Peter I. At the beginning of the 18th century, the names of writers began to appear in Russian literature one after another, neither by affiliation nor by their way of thinking connected with the clergy or the authority of the church. This list opens with the name of Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir, whose literary activity, in terms of its purposefulness and social significance, can be safely called a feat.

Antioch Cantemir acted as a convinced supporter and defender of the system of state life that was created by the transformations of Peter I, which brought the country out of centuries-old backwardness and, despite all their social limitations, had a deeply progressive character. The socio-political consciousness of A. Cantemir, sensitive to the contradictions of life, reflected the best acquisitions of social and political thought of the 18th century.

A.D. Kantemir lived in an era when the first foundations of the modern Russian literary language were just being laid; his satires were written according to the syllabic system of versification, which was already outlived at that time, and nevertheless the name of Cantemir, in the words of Belinsky, “has already outlived many ephemeral celebrities, both classical and romantic, and will still outlive many thousands of them,” as Cantemir “ the first in Rus' to bring poetry to life." (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 8. M., 1955, pp. 614 and 624.)

Antioch Cantemir was born on September 10, 1708 in the family of Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich Cantemir (1663-1723), who belonged to the highest Moldavian nobility: at the end of the 17th century, Antioch's grandfather, Constantin Cantemir, received Moldavia with the title of ruler from the Turkish Sultan.

Constantine's son, Dmitry Cantemir, the writer's father, spent his youth and early adulthood in Constantinople as a hostage; There he also received a brilliant education for his time: he spoke many European and Oriental languages, had extraordinary knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, architecture and music, had a penchant for scientific studies and left behind a number of scientific works in Latin, Moldavian (Romanian) and Russian languages.

The relations between the population of Moldova and the Russian and Ukrainian peoples have been friendly for centuries. Russian sympathies in Moldova were extremely strong not only among the common people, but also among the Moldavian nobility. These sympathies were reflected in the state activities of Prince Dmitry Cantemir, who received the title of Ruler of Moldavia in 1710, shortly after the death of his father. D. Cantemir, taking advantage of the outbreak of the war between Russia and Turkey, sought to free his country from the Turkish yoke and, pursuing this goal, entered into secret relations with Peter I; in 1711, as a result of the unsuccessful Prut campaign, D. Cantemir, together with his family, consisting of his wife and six children, was forced to permanently move to Russia.

At first, after moving to Russia, the Kantemir family lived in Kharkov, and then in the Kursk and Ukrainian estates granted to D. Kantemir by Peter I. In 1713, the old prince moved with his family to Moscow.

Of the four sons of D. Cantemir, the youngest, Antiochus, was distinguished by the greatest aspirations and abilities for education. An important role in the mental development of A.D. Kantemir belonged to the mentors of his childhood: Anastasius (Afanasy) Kondoidi and Ivan Ilyinsky.

Anastasius Kondoidi, despite his priestly rank, was a man of a secular lifestyle and interests. He taught the children of D. Cantemir ancient Greek, Latin, Italian languages ​​and history. In 1719, by order of Peter I, Kondoidi was taken from the Kantemirov family to serve in the Theological College.

Much more important for the mental development of Antiochus Cantemir was Ivan Ilyinsky, who was educated at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. He was a good Latinist, as well as an expert in ancient Russian writing and language. In N. I. Novikov’s “Experience of a Dictionary of Russian Writers” it is also said that Ilyinsky “wrote many poems with different contents.” Ilyinsky taught young A. Kantemir the Russian language and writing. Biographers of Antioch Cantemir mention that he studied at the Zaikonospassky School, stipulating that neither the date of admission nor the length of A. Cantemir’s stay there are unknown. The systematic training of A. Cantemir at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy can be questioned, but his close ties with the academy, its mentors and students are quite real. It is known, for example, that in 1718, at the age of ten, Antiochus Cantemir publicly spoke at the said academy with a word of praise to Demetrius of Thessaloniki, which he pronounced in Greek. Antioch Cantemir probably also owed his connections to the Moscow Academy to Ivan Ilyinsky.

Moscow life at the beginning of the 18th century was full of the most striking contrasts and bright colors, the most bizarre combinations of obsolete forms of life with new ones. In the old capital one could often meet all kinds of zealots of long-lasting antiquity. The impressions of Moscow life left an indelible mark on the consciousness and creativity of A. Kantemir.

In 1719, at the invitation of the Tsar, D. Kantemir moved to St. Petersburg, and his whole family soon moved there after him.

In an effort to involve Cantemir the father in government activities, Peter I gave him all sorts of assignments, and in 1721 he appointed him a member of the Senate. Both in his father's house and outside the house, young Antioch Cantemir becomes an involuntary observer of court life. The images of dignitaries, favorites and temporary workers, who would later appear in Cantemir’s satires, were living impressions of his youth.

In 1722, Dmitry Cantemir, a great expert on the life and way of life of eastern peoples and eastern languages, accompanies Peter I on the famous Persian campaign. Together with D. Cantemir, 14-year-old Antioch Cantemir also took part in this campaign.

Echoes of impressions from the Persian campaign, which lasted about a year, can be found in a number of works by A. Cantemir (the first edition of the III satire, written in French and dedicated to Madame d'Aiguillon madrigal and others).

In August 1723, on the way back from the Persian campaign, D. Cantemir died, and soon after that his entire family moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Antioch Cantemir, who was already drawing up plans for a different, completely independent life that corresponded to the ideal that had developed in his mind, also lived in Moscow and on his father’s estate near Moscow, Chernye Gryazi. In a petition written on May 25, 1724 addressed to Peter I, 16-year-old Antioch Cantemir listed the sciences for which he “had a great desire” (ancient and modern history, geography, jurisprudence, disciplines related to the “political state,” mathematical sciences and painting), and to study them he asked to be released to the “neighboring states.” This youthful statement of Antioch Cantemir fully reflected the strength of his character, his irresistible desire for education.

In connection with the implementation of the initial measures of Peter I to organize the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, Kantemir, however, has the opportunity to improve his education without traveling abroad. Antioch Cantemir studied with St. Petersburg academicians for a short period of time in 1724-1725. He takes mathematics lessons from Professor Bernoulli, physics from Bilfinger, history from Bayer, and history from Chr. Gross - moral philosophy.

Even before completing his studies at the Academy of Sciences, Antioch Cantemir entered military service, in the Preobrazhensky Life Guards Regiment. For three years, Cantemir served in the rank of lower rank and only in 1728 received the first officer rank - lieutenant.

The beginning of the literary activity of Antioch Cantemir also dates back to this period, which at first took place under the direct leadership of Ivan Ilyinsky. The first printed “work” of Antiochus Cantemir, “Symphony on the Psalter,” about which the author’s preface says that it “was composed as if by itself as a frequent exercise in sacred psalmody,” is a set of verses from the psalms of David, arranged in alphabetical thematic order . The “Symphony on the Psalter,” written in 1726 and published in 1727, is directly related to Cantemir’s poetic work, since for its time the Psalter was not only “God-inspired,” but also a poetic book.

"Symphony on the Psalter" is the first printed work of A. Cantemir, but not his first literary work in general, which is confirmed by the authorized manuscript of a little-known translation by Antiochus Cantemir entitled "Mr. Philosopher Constantine Manassis Synopsis Historical", dated 1725. (State Public Library named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Department of Manuscripts. Q. IV. 25.) Kantemir translated the Chronicle of Manasseh from the Latin text and only subsequently, turning to the Greek original, made minor corrections to his translation. The language of this translation is called by Cantemir “Slavic-Russian”, and the morphological and syntactic norms of the Church Slavonic language really dominate in the translation, which cannot be said about any of Cantemir’s other works. At the same time, even in this translation, elements of vernacular language, borrowings from foreign languages ​​and neologisms are presented very widely, especially if we take into account the translations made by Cantemir in the margins of the manuscript of individual Slavicisms and foreign words found in the text. (For example, we give several such explanations made by L. D. Kantemir: treasure keeper - treasurer, elephants - elephants, ramo - shoulder, fabula - skask, trivun - leader, passage - journey, spectator - the one who looks, Navta is a navigator or sailor, Victoria is victory, a poor man is a potter, a tyrant is a torturer.)

In the “Translation of a Certain Italian Letter,” made by A. Cantemir only one year later (1726), the vernacular is no longer present in the form of random elements, but as the dominant norm, although the language of this translation was called by Cantemir, out of habit, “famous -Russian".

The rapid transition from Church Slavonic vocabulary, morphology and syntax to vernacular as the norm of literary speech, which can be traced in the earliest works of A. Cantemir, reflected the evolution of not only his individual language and style, but also the development of the linguistic consciousness of the era and the formation of Russian literary language as a whole.

The years 1726-1728 should include the work of A. Cantemir on poems on a love theme that have not reached us, about which he later wrote with some regret in the second edition of the IV satire.

During this period, Antioch Cantemir showed an increased interest in French literature, which is confirmed by the above-mentioned “Translation of a Certain Italian Letter” (The original of this translation was the following anonymous publication in French: Lettre d'un Silicien a un de ses amis. Contenant une agreable Critique de Paris et de Francois. Traduite de l "Italien. A. Chamberi, chez Pierre Maubal, Marchand Libraire prХs la Place. 1714.) and Cantemir’s notes in his 1728 calendar, from which we learn about the young writer’s acquaintance with French satirical magazines of the English type like "Le Mentor moderne", as well as with the work of Moliere ("The Misanthrope") and the comedies of Marivaux. (Two volumes of the edition "Le Spectateur francois" (nouvelle edition, vol. I--II), which Cantemir read in 1728, consisted exclusively of the works of Marivaux. They were printed there: L "avis de l" Imprimeur, L "indigent philosophe ou L" homme sans soucis, L"isle de la Raison ou Les petits hommes and other comedies by this author.)

The work of A. Cantemir on the translation into Russian of Boileau’s four satires and the writing of the original poems “On a Quiet Life” and “On Zoila” should also be attributed to this period.

A. Cantemir's early translations and his love lyrics were only a preparatory stage in the poet's work, the first test of strength, the development of language and style, manner of presentation, his own way of seeing the world.

In 1729, the poet began a period of creative maturity, when he quite consciously focused his attention almost exclusively on satire:

In a word, I want to grow old in satires,
But I can’t not write: I can’t stand it.
(IV satire, I ed.)

A new stage in the literary activity of Antioch Cantemir was prepared by the long and complex development of not only the aesthetic, but also the social consciousness of the poet. Kantemir’s acquaintance with the head of the “scientific squad” Feofan Prokopovich played a significant role in this development.

The heyday of Feofan Prokopovich’s preaching and journalistic activities, as well as his career (from a teacher of rhetoric at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy to the position of leading member of the Synod) coincides with the second half of the reign of Peter I. As an active associate of the tsar in the reform of the Russian church and, in particular, As the author of the “Spiritual Regulations”, which abolished the patriarchate, Feofan Prokopovich created a lot of enemies for himself in the circles of the clergy and reactionary nobility who clung to the old days. Manifested in hidden forms during the life of Peter I, hatred of the author of the “Spiritual Regulations” became almost open during the reign of Catherine I and Peter II, when, as a result of the onset of political reaction, Theophylact Lopatinsky, Georgy Dashkov and other persons began to rise in the church hierarchy and in the Synod. ready to settle their old scores with Feofan.

When Anna Ioannovna ascended the throne (1730), as the head of the “learned squad,” Feofan took an active part in the struggle against the leaders who sought to limit the autocratic power of the empress with the so-called “conditions.” Together with Theophanes, young Antioch Cantemir also took part in this struggle. With the accession of Anna Ioannovna, the threat of disgrace was removed from Feofan, but not completely destroyed. Numerous enemies continued to oppose Theophanes through denunciations and intrigues until his death.

Feofan Prokopovich also acted as an irreconcilable opponent of antiquity in his literary work. Among the literary and artistic works of Feofan are known: the tragic-comedy “Vladimir”, several “Conversations” written in the style of Lucian’s “Dialogues”, and many odes and small lyrical poems written in Russian, Latin and Polish.

A. Kantemir's personal acquaintance with Feofan dates back, apparently, to the beginning of 1730. Antioch Cantemir discovered excellent knowledge not only of the general tasks facing the “learned squad”, but also of the forces and individuals with whom it fought, already in his first satire. The positions put forward by the young satirist and their argumentation largely repeated the arguments and argumentation of Feofan’s speeches and sermons.

Cantemir's first satire, "On those who blaspheme the teaching" ("To your mind"), was a work of great political resonance, since it was directed against ignorance as a specific social and political force, and not an abstract vice; against ignorance “in an embroidered dress”, opposing the reforms of Peter I and the Enlightenment, against the teachings of Copernicus and printing; ignorance militant and triumphant; vested with the authority of state and church authorities.

Pride, laziness, wealth - wisdom has overcome,
Ignorance and knowledge have already taken root;
He is proud under his miter, he walks in an embroidered dress,
It judges the red cloth, manages the shelves.
Science is torn, trimmed in rags,
Of all the noblest houses, knocked down with a curse.

In his first satire, Cantemir attacks with particular strength and courage the representatives of the church reaction, since the latter tried to lead the struggle of the reactionary forces against the reforms of Peter I.

Contrary to the preface to the satire, in which the author tried to assure the reader that everything in it was “written for fun” and that he, the author, “did not imagine anyone as a particular person,” Cantemir’s first satire was directed against well-defined and “particular” individuals , - these were enemies of the cause of Peter and the “learned squad”. “The character of the bishop,” Kantemir wrote in one of the notes to the satire, “although described by an unknown person by the author, has many similarities with D***, who in external ceremonies appointed the entire position of the high priesthood.” Making fun of a clergyman in satire, whose entire education is limited to mastering the “Stone of Faith” by Stefan Yavorsky, Cantemir unequivocally pointed to his own ideological position - a supporter of the “learned squad”. The images of churchmen created by Cantemir corresponded to very real prototypes, and yet these were generalization images, they excited minds, reactionary churchmen of new generations continued to recognize themselves in them, when the name of Antioch Cantemir became part of history and when the names of Georgy Dashkov and his associates were betrayed complete oblivion.

I Cantemir's satire immediately after its appearance became widespread in lists. There was no question of publishing it at that time, its content was so bold and politically acute. The spread of Cantemir's satire aroused the furious fury of the churchmen. So, for example, it is known that when V.K. Trediakovsky, who returned from abroad, read Cantemir’s first satire in a small circle of people, this was followed by a lengthy complaint to the Synod, written by Archimandrite Platon Malinovsky. (See I. Chistovich. Feofan Prokopovich and his time. St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 384.) The reputation of a freethinker and an atheist that developed for the young V.K. Trediakovsky was largely determined, undoubtedly, by his enthusiastic attitude to Cantemir’s first satire. (See A. Malein. New data for the biography of V.K. Trediakovsky. Collection of articles in honor of Academician A.I. Sobolevsky. L., 1928, pp. 430--432.)

Russian satire arose long before A. Cantemir. A large number of satirical works were created by the poetic creativity of the Russian people. It was widespread in the writing of the Russian Middle Ages, especially in the literature of the democratic movement. Elements of satire, including satirical images of monks, can also be found in the works of Simeon of Polotsk and Feofan Prokopovich. Satire even penetrated into church moralizing literature.

Antioch Cantemir was certainly familiar with the satirical tradition of previous Russian literature, and it could not help but manifest itself in his own work. And at the same time, in the development of this tradition, A. Cantemir acted as a true innovator. Cantemir’s innovation was manifested both in the fact that he was the first to transfer to Russian soil the genre of poetic satire, which arose in ancient literature and from there, adopted by the literature of Western Europe, as a special type of didactic poetry, and in the fact that, relying on the experience and traditions of Russian literature, Cantemir raised it to a new level, made it a form of expression of the advanced ideas of its time.

Cantemir's second satire, “On the envy and pride of the evil nobles,” appeared around the beginning of 1730. Written in the form of a dialogue between Aretophilos, the exponent of the author’s ideas, and the Nobleman, who represented the views of the old noble reaction, this satire, according to Cantemir himself, aimed to “expose those nobles who, being deprived of all good morals, boast of nobility alone, and also envy everyone well-being in people who come from meanness through their labors." Peter I’s “Table of Ranks,” which infringed on the privileges of ancient boyar families and opened access to the nobility for people from other classes, was based on the recognition and affirmation of the right of personal merit. Cantemir also appears as a defender of the right of personal merit in satire II, but the content of his satire is not limited to this. With astonishing courage for his time, he rises above the concepts of genealogical honor and criticizes the “nobility” of origin from the point of view of the Enlightenment theory of “natural law.”

The nobleman of Cantemir's second satire is a powdered and dressed up metropolitan dandy, a descendant of an aristocratic family. A subtle connoisseur of court etiquette and at the same time a lover of card games and overseas wines, empty and arrogant, he demands for himself awards and honors for the antiquity of his family, for the withered parchment, and for which the merits of his ancestors are calculated.

In the words and in the questions that Aretophilos poses to the arrogant nobleman, the latter’s internal inconsistency is revealed.

Did you defeat your enemies? benefited the people?
Did Neptune's actions frighten the power - water?
Have you multiplied the royal treasures?
Having despised peace, did he himself take up the labors of war?

Aretophilos does not deny the usefulness of the noble class in general (“A noble breed is not an empty matter”), nevertheless, he acts as a convinced champion of the noble idea of ​​​​the value of a person beyond the class.

Adam begat no princes, but only one child
His garden was being dug, another was herding a herd across the fields.

Cantemir foresaw the discontent that his satire was supposed to cause in the circles of the nobility, and also foresaw the question addressed to him about who allowed him to act as such a strict judge of the nobility. “To their last question,” Kantemir answered in the preface to the satire, “who made me a judge, I answer: that everything that I write, I write in the capacity of a citizen, discouraging everything that could be harmful to my fellow citizens.” . Before Kantemir, no one in Russian literature had expressed such bold judgments. This gave Belinsky the right, when analyzing the writer’s second satire, to declare that it expressed “sacred truths about human dignity.” (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 8 M., 1955, p. 624.)

In the events associated with the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna at the beginning of 1730, the “learned squad” acts as a political organization. The “conditions” proposed to the new autocrat on behalf of the leaders were signed by her in Mitau, before arriving in Moscow. However, by the time of this arrival, a fairly powerful opposition to the leaders had formed among the nobility, headed by Prince. A. M. Cherkassky. Behind the leaders stood the old aristocratic nobility, which opposed Peter’s reforms, while the opposition represented the interests of the new nobility.

The “scientific squad” also joined this opposition. On behalf of the nobility, A. Kantemir drew up a petition addressed to the empress. The petition was covered with numerous signatures of the nobility. As a lieutenant of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, A. Kantemir took an active part in collecting signatures for a petition among guard officers. February 25, 1730, headed by Prince. By A. M. Cherkassky, the nobility appeared at a meeting of the Supreme Privy Council, where the petition drawn up by L. Kantemir was already read to the empress, after which the latter “deigned” to accept the “conditions” offered to her by the supreme leaders.<...>tear it up" and accept autocracy.

“The first sign of gratitude,” writes O. Guasco, “received by Prince Cantemir from the empress, was the grant of a thousand peasant households. She awarded this gift not only to A. Cantemir personally, but also his two brothers and sister, who had a very insignificant part of his father's inheritance. This manifestation of royal favor frightened the courtiers and especially Prince Golitsyn, father-in-law of Konstantin, the elder brother of Antiochus; Prince Golitsyn feared that the latter would take advantage of the Empress's favor to him in order to return the estates unjustly alienated from him. (In 1729 year, Konstantin Cantemir, taking advantage of the patronage of his father-in-law, Prince D. M. Golitsyn, received, contrary to the will of Prince D. K. Cantemir, almost his entire inheritance. - Ed.) They convinced the empress to send him to some foreign court as envoy. Looking only for a reason to reward A. Cantemir, she believed that this proposal came from pure motives. However, the extreme youth of Prince Cantemir was the reason for a certain indecisiveness on her part." (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), pp. XLI--XLIII.) The Empress finally agreed with the proposal to send A. Cantemir to London only after it received strong support from Biron.

So, unlike other persons who participated in the installation of Anna Ioannovna on the throne, Antioch Cantemir did not receive any personal awards from the new government. For almost two years since the accession of Anna Ioannovna, A. Cantemir continued to remain in the rank of lieutenant, which he received during the reign of Peter II, in 1728. A. Cantemir's claim dating back to 1731 to receive the post of president of the Academy of Sciences also remained unsatisfied. Some reasons hidden from the eyes of researchers prevented A. Kantemir from taking the social and official position that would correspond to his talents and education. The reason that gave rise to a suspicious attitude towards A. Cantemir in court circles could be his literary activity. This assumption is confirmed by the break in the writer’s satirical work that began in 1731 and lasted six years.

This assumption is also supported by the testimony of N.I. Novikov, who in “Trutn” for 1769 stated that in Rus' there were satirists stronger than him, “but even then they broke off their horns.” (See "Satirical magazines of N. I. Novikov. Editorial, introductory article and comments by P. N. Berkov. M. -L., 1951, pp. 71 and 527.)

In the last two years of his stay in Russia (1730-1731), despite personal failures, Antioch Cantemir devoted himself with great enthusiasm to scientific pursuits and literary creativity.

In 1730, he completed work on a translation of Fontenelle's Conversations on the Many Worlds, which was a popular exposition of Copernicus' heliocentric system.

The manuscript of Fontenelle's translation of "Conversations on the Many Worlds" was submitted by A. Cantemir to the Academy of Sciences for printing in 1730. However, only 10 years later, in 1740, the book was published. (The significance that this book acquired in the development of Russian scientific and social thought of the 18th century can be judged by the case brought against it in 1756 by the clergyman M. P. Abramov, as against an atheistic “ungodly book” sowing “satanic deceit.” At the same time By decision of the Synod, Cantemir's translation was confiscated. In 1761, as a result of the weakening of the church reaction that occurred after the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Fontenelle's book, translated by A. Cantemir, was published a second time, and in 1802 a new, third edition followed.)

Among the poetic works during 1730-1731, not counting small poems, A. Cantemir wrote: the first (and only) song of the poem “Petrida”, as well as III, IV and V satires.

A special place among these satires belongs to satire IV (“To His Muse”); it is devoted to the presentation of the author's aesthetic program and contains a number of autobiographical confessions. In terms of simplicity and naturalness of construction, clarity of language and sincerity of tone, this is one of Cantemir’s best satires. Satire is a kind of dialogue between the author and his muse. The author introduces the muse to a number of people who are dissatisfied with his satire: one of them accuses the satirist of atheism, another writes a denunciation against him for defamation of the clergy, the third is preparing to bring the satirist to justice for the fact that with his poems against drunkenness he allegedly belittles “circular incomes” . The author's position is hopeless:

And it’s better not to write for a century than to write satire,
Even she hates me, the creator, and repairs the world.

However, the satirist’s attempt to write odes and eclogues also does not lead to success, and it is followed by recognition of the author;

I can’t tidy up the rhymes, how I want to praise;
No matter how much I bite my nails and rub my sweaty forehead,
It’s hard to weave two verses, and even those are unripe...

Although my muse is a constant nuisance to everyone,
Rich, poor, cheerful, sorrowful - I will weave poetry.

The author is led to such a decision not so much by his natural inclination towards the comic, but by his firm conviction that art should depict real and not fictitious events. He refuses to write an eclogue dedicated to Iris, because Iris is not in life:

And wouldn’t I be funny if I didn’t know love?
I would like to look like Iris, sighing,
And Iris is fictitious - I haven’t seen it in my life;
However, it either burns or drowns in water,
And constantly say that I’m dying,
Even though I sleep, I eat a lot and drink a bucket a day.

Demanding from literature a rapprochement with life in the sense of the verisimilitude of literary works, the satirist put forward at the same time the demand for truthfulness, expression in literature of moral truth, social justice, understood in the spirit of the educational ideology of the 18th century.

I can’t praise in any way what is worthy of blasphemy, -
I give everyone a name that is appropriate;
Whether in the mouth or in the heart, I don’t know:
A pig is a pig, but I simply call a lion a lion.

Satire III "On the difference in human passions" and V ("On a person", later called "On human evils in general"), both in topic and content, have a number of similar features. If in satires I and II the vices of certain classes or social groups were ridiculed, then in satires III and V vices and passions as such, as passions in general, are ridiculed. For example, in Satire III there is a gallery of portraits dedicated to the depiction of people obsessed with various vices or passions: stinginess, extravagance, bigotry, etc.

Satires III and V, to a greater extent than other satires by A. Cantemir, reflected the influence of the rationalistic aesthetics of classicism with its division of people into good and bad, with its tendency to depict a person and his actions in their static state. However, something else is indicative: even here, following the examples of Boileau and La Bruyère, Cantemir strives to fill the borrowed compositional scheme with new content. For example, the image of the “war lover” from Satire V is deeply original.

The author's deep interest in the surrounding life and the “spite of the day” gives many of the images of the above-mentioned satires a very definite social and national content. This is the image of the loquacious landowner Grunnius in the III satire, and this is even more so the image of the serf complaining about his fate in the V satire.

The plowman, carrying the plow or counting the rent,
More than once he sighs, wiping away tears:
“Why didn’t the creator make me a soldier?
I wouldn’t wear a gray coat, but a rich dress,
If only he knew his gun and his corporal,
My foot would not stand on the right,
For me, my pig would just start pigging out,
I'd like milk from a cow, I'd run around smoking;
Otherwise everything goes to the clerk, the solicitor, the princess
Bring it to your respects, and fatten yourself on the chaff."
The exaction came, the plowman was registered as a soldier -
More than once he will remember the smoky chambers,
He curses his life in a green caftan,
Ten a day he will cry for a gray zhupan.

In the image of a peasant soldier, Cantemir’s creative individuality manifested itself with exceptional strength.

The above passage, both in content and in the manner of presentation, is not only the best place in the V satire, but also one of the best achievements in Cantemir’s work in general. The image of a serf peasant who became a soldier created by the writer opens up the peasant theme in Russian literature.

Kantemir was the first Russian writer to give a truthful and sympathetic portrayal of a serf peasant complaining about his difficult fate - and this is the writer’s unforgettable merit to Russian literature.

The appointment of Antiochus Cantemir to the post of Russian diplomatic representative ("resident") in London took place in November 1731.

On January 1, 1732, A. Cantemir left Russia and on March 30 of the same year arrived in London. Cantemir's diplomatic service, which began from that time, lasted over 12 years and was interrupted only with his death.

The main features of the foreign policy pursued by Russia throughout the 18th century were outlined by Peter I. Even during the life of Peter I, a coalition of powers hostile to Russia emerged in Western Europe, which included France, England and Prussia. During the years of A. Cantemir's diplomatic service, the anti-Russian policy of these powers, and especially France, was particularly active. France made strenuous efforts to create an anti-Russian bloc from the states bordering Russia: Sweden, Poland and Turkey. In the current international situation, Russian diplomacy was required to have special foresight and flexibility, and the ability to use the contradictions that existed between the Western powers. A. Cantemir, as a diplomat, fully possessed these qualities.

Kantemir makes a lot of efforts to establish normal diplomatic relations between England and Russia; he takes, although unsuccessfully, a number of steps to achieve an alliance between both countries during the struggle for the Polish throne in 1734; persistently strives for the recognition by the English government of the imperial title of Anna Ioannovna, rightly considering these efforts as a struggle to maintain the international prestige of the Russian state. In 1735, the Russian government informed its resident in London about the reprehensible behavior towards Russia of the English ambassador in Constantinople, Lord Kinul, and thanks to the energetic intervention of A. Cantemir in this matter, the English government was forced to condemn the behavior of its ambassador and recall him from his diplomatic post.

Great efforts were required from A. Cantemir by the need to refute various hostile and even simply slanderous information about Russia, which was systematically disseminated by the foreign press, as well as by various kinds of international adventurers who were in the service of Russia’s political enemies.

A. Cantemir's official duties were not limited to purely diplomatic activities. On behalf of the Russian government, he had to look for various specialists abroad, carry out various instructions from the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, take care of Russian people sent abroad on various matters and left there without any funds or attention from the Russian government, carry out certain instructions from Russian dignitaries, etc.

Despite the huge number of official affairs, A. Cantemir does not stop his literary activity at this time. In London, Cantemir is working hard on translating Anacreon's Songs; he is also engaged there in translating Justin’s History, considering it as “an occasion to enrich our people with translations of ancient writers, Greek and Latin, who can best arouse in us a desire for science”; (See V. Druzhinin. Three unknown works of Prince Antiochus Cantemir. - "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1887, December, p. 4.) Cantemir also works there and on a translation of the popular scientific work "Conversations about light" by Italian writer Francesco Algarotti; reworks satires written in Russia, and in 1738 creates a new, VI satire.

During his stay in London, A. Cantemir mastered the English language and became well acquainted with English philosophical and social thought and literature. A. Cantemir's library contained a large number of books with the works of T. More, Newton, Locke, Hobbes, Milton, Pope, Swift, Addison, Style and other outstanding English philosophers, scientists and writers. (See V.N. Aleksandrenko. On the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. Warsaw, 1896, pp. 14-46.)

A. Cantemir’s acquaintance with the English historian N. Tyndale, who translated into English and in 1734 published in London “History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir, indicates that A. Cantemir also had direct personal relationships with English scientists and writers connections that, unfortunately, have not yet been examined by our science.

In mid-1737, A. Cantemir received from his government an offer to enter into negotiations with the French ambassador in London Cambyses in order to restore diplomatic relations between Russia and France, interrupted due to the Polish War. As a result of the successful completion of these negotiations, A. Cantemir was granted the title of chamberlain by the Russian government and, with the degree of minister plenipotentiary, was appointed Russian envoy in Paris.

Cantemir arrived in Paris in September 1738. Even before assuming the post of Minister Plenipotentiary, Cantemir received instructions from the Russian court, in which he was instructed to “show special respect” to Cardinal de Fleury. A protege of the highest clergy, Cardinal de Fleury was the head of government under Louis XV and had much more power than the king himself. The growing influence of Russia on the politics of the northern countries was a cause of serious concern and fear for the all-powerful Cardinal de Fleury. The French government, through its envoy Marquis de Chétardy, played a diplomatic game with Princess Elizabeth Petrovna in St. Petersburg, hoping that with her accession French influence at the Russian court would increase; it openly intrigued against Russia in Sweden; supervised the secret negotiations of Sweden with Turkey, etc. And the reports and correspondence of A. Cantemir, in which a lot of space is given to Cardinal de Fleury and his right hand, Secretary of State Amelo, convince us that the Russian envoy in Paris was extremely The complexity and responsibility of his mission are clear, as well as the true cost of the courtesies of the cardinal and his “less than simple ministers.” Even on his walks through the streets of Paris, according to reports from French police agents, Cantemir often took with him a servant, who walked behind him and often looked back. (V.N. Aleksandrenko. Russian diplomatic agents in London in the 18th century, vol. 1. Warsaw, 1897, p. 371.)

In addition to difficulties of a foreign policy nature, the diplomatic activities of A. Cantemir also encountered a number of difficulties created by the Russian government and the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. A. I. Osterman, who was in charge of the affairs of the said board under Anna Ioannovna, denied A. Kantemir the most minimal means required by the Russian embassy in Paris to familiarize himself with the political state of Europe, to combat hostile information about Russia, etc. A.’s difficult financial situation. Kantemir did not change even after, with the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna, Prince became in charge of the affairs of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. A. M. Cherkassky, nor after the death of the latter (1742), when management of the collegium passed into the hands of A. Bestuzhev.

But even under these conditions, Cantemir’s diplomatic activities were extremely effective. His subtle mind, excellent knowledge of international politics and good knowledge of the peculiarities of French life often ensured the success of his diplomatic activities aimed at strengthening the international prestige of Russia.

A. Cantemir had deep respect for the best achievements of the French genius in the field of culture and literature. Long before his departure abroad, he studied French classics, practiced translations from French, and followed the development of French literature. “Upon arrival in Paris,” says Guasco, “he did not neglect anything that could bring him closer to the literary environment of the country.” (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), p. XC1.)

Cantemir had very close ties with the representative of the early French enlightenment Montesquieu, whose name was known to French readers at that time from his “Persian Letters,” a literary work that satirically depicted feudal-class France. It should be said that at the same time A. Kantemir made a translation of this work into Russian that has not reached us. Cantemir’s acquaintance with Montesquieu coincides with the period of work of the French thinker and writer on his famous treatise on jurisprudence “The Spirit of Laws,” published only in 1748, when A. Cantemir was no longer alive. A. Cantemir's close ties with Montesquieu are confirmed by a number of documents, including the direct participation of the great French educator in the posthumous publication of Cantemir's satires in French translation, carried out in 1749 in Paris by a group of French friends of the Russian writer. (See M.P. Alekseev. Montesquieu and Cantemir. - "Bulletin of Leningrad University", 1955, No. 6, pp. 55-78.)

In his communication with French scientists and writers, A. Kantemir not only listened to their opinions and adopted their experience, but also acted as an expert on the life, everyday life and history of Russia, a writer and propagandist of the best achievements of the culture of the Russian people. And it is no coincidence that Guasco called him “a zealous propagandist of the institutions of Peter the Great.” “We Russians,” Cantemir wrote about Peter I to Madame Montconsel, a French acquaintance of his, “having the happiness of being his subjects even for a short time, are incapable of doing anything less than honoring his memory for the fact that he rescued you from the shameful darkness and led him onto the path of glory." (L.N. Maikov. Materials for the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 71.) Kantemir used his acquaintance with the Parisian artists Subeyran and Willem A. to make an engraved portrait of Peter I, so that it “to be multiplied in foreign lands to the surprise of nations.” (See Archive of Prince Vorontsov, vol. 1. M., 1870, p. 385. and also: V. Stasov. Gallery of Peter the Great in the Imperial Public Library. St. Petersburg, 1903, § 241. p. 227.)

To familiarize the Western European public with Russia and the growing Russian culture, Antioch Cantemir spared neither effort nor money. Among the activities that pursued this goal should also be included the publication of the French translation of the “History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir. The plan for this publication, as can be seen from the correspondence of A. Cantemir, arose from him already in 1736, during his first trip to Paris. "History of the Ottoman Empire" by D. Cantemir was published in French in Jonquière's translation only in 1743. (See Histoire de l'Empire Othoman, ou se voyent les causes de son aggrandissment et de sa decadence avec les notes tres instructives. Par S. a. S. Demetrius Cantemir, prince de Moldavie. Traduite en Francois par M. de Joncquieres A Paris, 1743, vls. I--II.) A. Cantemir was not only the initiator of the publication of this book, but also the author of the biography of D. Cantemir attached to it, and also, probably, in many cases, the author of its comments, far exceeding the commentary of the English edition of the book. "History of the Ottoman Empire" by D. Cantemir in French translation went through two editions and became widespread in French academic circles of the 18th century. Suffice it to say that Denis Diderot's "Encyclopedia", recommending to its readers only two works on history Turkey, named “History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir as one of them.

"History of the Ottoman Empire" by D. Cantemir was well known to Voltaire. In 1751, in the preface to the second edition of the History of Charles XII, speaking disparagingly about the Greek and “Latin” historians who created a false image of Mohammed II, Voltaire wrote: “Hundreds of historians repeat their pitiful fables; European dictionaries repeat them. Turn to the deserving trust the Turkish chronicles collected by Prince Cantemir, and you will see how ridiculous all these fictions are." (Oeuvres completes de Voltaire. Nouvelle edition... Paris, Garnier-freres, 1880, t. 16, p. 127.) Voltaire quotes D. Cantemir’s work on the Ottoman Empire three times, also in “Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations.” It is also curious that Voltaire’s initial interest in the said book by D. Cantemir arose in 1739, i.e. at a time when there was no French translation yet. Voltaire's letter to Antiochus Cantemir dated March 13, 1739, as well as a number of other data convince us that D. Cantemir's "History of the Ottoman Empire" was used by Voltaire when he wrote the tragedy "Mohammed" in 1739.

Antioch Cantemir's stay in France had a strong impact on the development of the Russian theme in French literature. In this regard, the connections of the Russian writer-educator with the French playwright Pierre Morand (1701-1757), the author of the tragedy "Menshikov", are indicative.

The history of the creation of this tragedy is revealed in a letter from P. Moran to A. Cantemir dated January 13, 1739. (State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Collection of autographs of P.P. Dubrovsky, vol. 139, pp. 159--160.) The tragedy "Menshikov" was written, staged on the stage of one of the Parisian theaters and published in 1739 in The Hague with the direct participation of A. Cantemir.

"Menshikov" marked the beginning of the heroic interpretation of the image of Peter I in French literature and drama. Under the strong influence of this play, the tragedy “Amilka, or Peter the Great” by Dora and a number of other works of French literature of the 18th century were written in 1767, inheriting from P. Moran’s play the interpretation of Peter I as an “enlightened monarch.”

In a letter from P. Moran to A. Cantemir dated January 13, 1739, Luigi Riccoboni is mentioned as a person well known to the addressee.

The famous Italian artist Luigi Riccoboni (1677-1753) headed the Italian Comedy Theater in Paris for many years (1716-1729). Brought up in the traditions of the national "commedia dell'arte", L. Riccoboni's troupe upon arrival in Paris became close to the life of the French theater and over time began to play in French. The Riccoboni theater contrasted the French classic tragedy with a special acting technique based on the art of gesture and facial expressions and a new repertoire that represented the everyday life of the middle classes of society.Riccoboni's troupe created, in particular, wide popularity for Marivaux's comedies, which prepared the ground for the emergence of educational drama.

In the 30s of the 18th century, Luigi Riccoboni created a number of works on the history of theater ("Historical and critical discussions on various theaters in Europe", "History of the Italian theater", etc.), which became widely known and had, in particular, a noticeable impact on aesthetic the views of young Lessing. In 1742, Riccoboni completed work on a new book, On the Reform of the Theater, which was published in French in Paris in 1743. The author decided to dedicate this work, apparently on the advice of A. Cantemir, to the Russian Empress. The dedication written by L. Riccoboni was sent by A. Cantemir on June 20 (July 1), 1742 through Lestock to the Russian court. (L. N. Maikov. Materials for the biography of Prince A. D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 176.)

The dedication was a project for establishing a theater in Russia on the principles outlined in the book. It is natural to assume, therefore, that A. Cantemir, who took part in the publication of Riccoboni’s book and so persistently sought the consent of the Russian Empress to print this dedication project, largely shared the theatrical views of Luigi Riccoboni.

L. Riccoboni's project of theatrical reform anticipated the famous "Letter to d'Alembert on Spectacles" (1758) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as well as the dramatic theories of Diderot, Mercier and Retief de la Breton. The project contained a bold criticism of the French aristocratic theater with positions of the third estate, which opposed the effete and immoral art of the nobility. “The theater,” Riccoboni proclaimed, “should instill an aversion to vice and develop a taste for virtue in those people who do not go to any other school than the theater, and who, without the instructions they received there, throughout their entire life they would not have known about their shortcomings and would not have thought at all about eradicating them." (Louis Riccoboni. De la Reformation du theater. Paris, 1743, p. 100.)

Antioch Cantemir also had friendly relations with the French playwright Pierre-Claude Nivelle de la Chausse (1692-1754). (See M.P. Alekseev. Montesquieu and Cantemir. - "Bulletin of Leningrad University", 1955, No. 6, p. 74.) It is important to note that the founder of the French "tearful" comedy Nivelle de la Chausse, also like L. Riccoboni, he paved the way for a new, third-class theater.

The role of mediator in relations between the St. Petersburg and Paris Academies of Sciences, which Antioch Cantemir voluntarily took upon himself, contributed to the emergence of his connections with the Parisian scientific community. Cantemir's ties were especially close with the French mathematician and naturalist Pierre-Louis Maupertuis. Kantemir also had acquaintances in Parisian aristocratic circles. However, the culture of salons, high society and the court, as Cantemir’s correspondence shows, not only did not attract him, but even burdened him.

His official position obliged A. Cantemir to participate in secular and court life, but he felt real inner affection only for a small circle of his Parisian friends who thought the same way as him or perceived art in the same way.

Despite his deep connections with world culture and his long stay outside his homeland, A. Cantemir, as a writer and educator, did not dissolve in the foreign cultural element. A. Cantemir devoted almost all his leisure time and free time to the study of Russian literature, in which he saw his civic duty. From a satirist's letter to Chr. Gross dated May 1 (12), 1740 shows how persistently Cantemir sought the publication of his works in Russia, but his intention did not meet with support in the official spheres. As a precaution, the writer was forced to repeatedly declare that he was “only allowed to spend extra hours on literary work.” The tragedy of a writer forcibly deprived of communication with his readers, which Cantemir experienced, found vivid expression in his poem “To His Poems” (1743). In order to continue his poetic work even in such difficult conditions, it was necessary not only to feel an inextricable connection with Russian culture, but also to have an unshakable faith in its great destiny.

Only fragmentary news about Russian literary life reached Kantemir. Probably, while still in London, he received and read “A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Poems” by V. K. Trediakovsky, published in 1735 in St. Petersburg, which represented the first attempt to introduce the tonic system into Russian versification. The “new method” was not appreciated and accepted by Kantemir, and this was explained primarily by the fact that Trediakovsky’s attempt was theoretically contradictory and inconsistent, and in practical terms, cumbersome and helpless. Trediakovsky extended the correct alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables only to “long” poems, written only in trochees. The author of “The New Method” himself could not appreciate all the advantages of the new system of versification and for many years after its discovery he continued to use the rules of syllabic versification in his own poetic practice. The position taken by A. Cantemir in relation to Trediakovsky’s “Treatise” was partly explained by Cantemir’s isolation from the Russian literary environment and life. Russian responses to the reform of versification proposed by Trediakovsky, including a bold speech in defense of Lomonosov's tonic versification, in all likelihood remained unknown to Kantemir.

The reform of Russian versification proposed by Trediakovsky, rejected by Kantemir as a whole, however, raised before him the question of ordering his own verse. Agreeing with Trediakovsky that the organizing role in versification belongs to stress. Cantemir introduces into his thirteen-syllable syllabic verse with stress on the penultimate syllable a new obligatory stress, which falls on the seventh or fifth syllable. The introduction of this principle really imparted a certain elasticity and rhythmicity to the sluggish thirteen-syllable syllabic verse. Cantemir's poems, written abroad, are built on this principle. Cantemir considered it such an important acquisition that he decided to rework all previously written satires in accordance with it. The extent to which the writer managed to tone up the syllabic verse can be seen at least by the example of the first and second editions of the initial verses of satire II (cf. pp. 89 and 378). (Both page references here and below refer to this edition.)

If verses of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 9th editions of the first edition had only one stress on the penultimate syllable, then in the second edition, like verses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10, they receive the second stress is in the first hemistich (on the 5th and 7th syllables), and as a result the entire passage received a rather harmonious rhythmic structure of a thirteen-syllable syllabic verse with an obligatory caesura after the seventh syllable.

In his “Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend,” which was a response to Trediakovsky’s “New Method,” Kantemir revealed great knowledge and great interest in questions of the theory of poetry. His theoretical thought was by no means limited to the recognition of thirteen-syllable syllabic verse as the only possible one and allowed for 14 different verse meters. Kantemir acts in his reasoning as a supporter of the simplicity and clarity of the poetic word, thereby decisively breaking with the traditions of Russian syllabic versification of the 17th century. He defends the transfer of the verse to the next line, rightly seeing in the latter a means of counteracting the “unpleasant monotony” of a long syllabic thirteen syllable. Cantemir attached great importance both in theory and in poetic practice to the sound side of verse, and it is no coincidence that in VIII satire he expressed his disgust at the “sterile sound” in verse, which obscures the “deed.” The recognition of the importance of the rhythmic ordering of syllabic verse contained in the “Letter of Khariton Mackentin” was a significant step forward in comparison with the previous poetic work of Cantemir, but it, of course, could not be a step forward in the history of Russian versification, enriched by that time with the theoretical works and poetic experiments of Trediakovsky and Lomonosov.

Between the first and second (foreign) editions of Kantemir’s first five satires, there were also intermediate editions (See about this the article by T. M. Glagoleva “Materials for the complete works of Prince A. D. Kantemir.” (News of the Department of Russian Language and literature of the Academy of Sciences", 1906, vol. 11, book I, pp. 177-217). The point of view of T. M. Glagoleva was developed and clarified by Z. I. Gershkovich.) testifying to the exceptional tenacity that the author showed in improving the said satires. The revision pursued the goals of not only the rhythmic ordering of the satires, but also increasing their artistic merits. Kantemir achieved this improvement by eliminating direct borrowings from Horace and Boileau and weakening the elements of imitation. By processing the satires, Kantemir sought to give them a completely national Russian character. Thus , for example, the figure of Cato, atypical for Russian life, who publishes books not for the general benefit, but for his own glorification, is not included in the revision of the third satire into its second edition; at the same time, in the second edition of the third satire, an unusually colorful figure of Archimandrite Varlaam appears, a saint and sensualist, to whom

When at a party, at the table - and the meat is disgusting,
And he doesn’t want to drink wine; Yes, it’s not surprising:
At home I ate a whole capon, and for fat and lard
It became necessary to wash down bottles of Hungarian.
He feels sorry for the people who perished in lusts,
But he eagerly stares from under his forehead at round breasts,
And I would order my wife to meet with him.
Besperech advises anger to leave
And forget the annoyances, but seek to erase them into dust
A secret enemy will not give you peace even after death.

The portrait of Varlaam, in which Kantemir created an image of great generalizing power and at the same time depicted a real person (the confessor of Empress Anna Ioannovna), as well as a number of other portraits, allusions and author’s declarations contained in the second edition of Kantemir’s first five satires, give us the right to strongly object to the assertion that during the Parisian period of Cantemir’s life “there was an undoubted decline in the level of his political thought.” (L. V. Pumpyansky. Kantemir ("History of Russian Literature", published by the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 3. M--L., 1941).) While processing his early satires in order to prepare them for publication, Kantemir in some cases filmed rather sharp allusions to prominent dignitaries and clergy of the 30s, since these allusions, which had socio-political relevance for their time, lost their former meaning in the 40s of the 18th century. In some very rare cases, Kantemir had to introduce similar changes for censorship reasons. Cantemir's first satires in their original edition were designed for their semi-legal, handwritten distribution, while the second edition of the satires assumed their publication and the associated inevitable passage through the “censorship” of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.

To characterize the relationship between the first edition of Cantemir's early satires and their second edition, the satire V ("On a Person"), which underwent the first revision in 1737, a year before Cantemir's departure from London to Paris, is indicative. In 1742, the satire underwent additional revision, and thus, we have the right to call its second edition the edition of 1737-1742.

In the second edition, the satire increased by 284 verses, that is, more than one and a half times. From the original text of the satire, no more than 200 verses were included in the second edition, the rest were replaced. In the second edition, satire received a dialogical form and a new name (“Satyr and Perierg”). In the first edition of V, the satire was mostly imitative and consisted of character portraits, many of which were very distantly related to Russian life. At first glance, the beginning of the fifth satire and in the second edition, consisting of a dialogue between Satyr and Perierge, dedicated to the educational praise of patriarchal morals and criticism of urban civilization, is abstract in nature; however, the main content of the satire is painted in a purely Russian, national flavor. The image of a triumphant rogue-kisser, a bigot and a hypocrite, deceiving the people and surrounded by a crowd of bribe-takers from the administration, and a city whose population, celebrating the day of “St. Nicholas”, indulges in general drunkenness, is perceived as a political pamphlet on the Russian reality of that time. The same kind of pamphlet is the description of two ignorant and power-hungry royal dignitaries, Chiron and Xenon.

The image of the temporary worker - the “moron” Makar, towering above the other, minor characters of the satire, is also thoroughly lampooned. Being “fit only to chop wood or carry water,” he instantly ascended to the royal throne and just as instantly “slipped on slippery ice” and was forced to live out the rest of his life “between the sables,” that is, in Siberian exile. The image of a temporary idiot is worth many of the political hints of the first satire, since the author sought to give this image a general meaning: the temporary worker Makar is no exception to the rule, for his predecessor was the same fool and scoundrel, who “made the whole people angry”; Those who hasten to seize his place are no better than him.

The paintings and characters listed above are absent in the first edition of the V satire. The second edition of the said satire surpasses its initial edition both ideologically and artistically. True, even in the second edition of the satire, Kantemir failed to rise to the level of criticism of the foundations of the socio-political system of the then Russia. The disgusting figure of the idiot temporary worker, on the one hand, and the sympathetically drawn image of the peasant plowman wandering behind the plow, on the other, are not given in their mutual social conditioning, although they noticeably rise above the level of Russian everyday satire of the 18th century.

Already in Cantemir’s V satire we find a contrast between raging human passions and the “silence” of life. (In its rudimentary form, the glorification of “silence” and life spent surrounded by “dead friends” - books, is found in Cantemir already in the first edition of the first satire (verses 111-114).) The sixth satire is almost entirely devoted to the praise of this “silence”. writer "On True Bliss" (1738). The ideal of “contentment with little” depicted in this satire by Kantemir, limiting one’s desires and retreating into the field of ancient culture and modern science, bourgeois-liberal critics of the last century A.D. Galakhov and S.S. Dudyshkin explained the writer’s social indifference, his reluctance to respond to requests Russian life. (“Domestic Notes”, 1848, No. 11, department V, pp. 1-40, and “Contemporary”, 1848, No. 11, department III, pp. 1-40.) This false opinion about Cantemir received since then it has been most widely used in the literature. Meanwhile, it was during the Parisian period of his life that A. Cantemir worked with particular persistence to familiarize French public opinion with Russia and the Russian people, together with L. Riccoboni he showed interest in the establishment of a democratic theater in Russia, and was engaged in translation activities for educational purposes (translations of “Persian letters" of Montesquieu, "Epistle" of Horace, "Moral Teachings" of Epictetus), is compiling a Russian-French dictionary, preparing to write an essay on the history of Russia, etc. Thus, the immersion of Antiochus Cantemir into "silence" was accompanied by an intensification of his social activities. At the same time, the poetic declaration of satire VI is quite logical, since sentiments consonant with it also appear in the second edition of satire I and in other works of the writer, indicating some real change in his socio-political views. The “silence” and “golden moderation” proclaimed by the writer-enlightenment were for Kantemir only a unique form of protest against the oppressive conditions of Russian life, the only, in the writer’s opinion, a means of getting rid of the Ostermans and Cherkasskys, from personal involvement in the intrigues and politics of the Russian court.

The desire for “silence” and solitude expressed in satire VI and other works of Cantemir can be correctly understood if we also consider it in relation to the social and aesthetic ideas of representatives of the Western European Enlightenment. The theory of curbing passions as a means to achieve the common good and the idealization of patriarchal social relations and the life of a private person free from state interference - in one form or another we find in Locke and Shaftesbury, in Voltaire and Rousseau and, in particular, in L. Riccoboni and Nivelles de la Chausse.

In satire VI, Cantemir not only dreams of “silence,” but at the same time criticizes aristocratic morality, the world of wealth and rank, court intrigue and groveling. Cantemir here depicts a dignitary close to the royal person, exhausted from honors and wealth. The dignitary dies from intrigues portrayed as an integral part of court life.

We also find criticism of aristocratic morality in satire VII (On Education, 1739), which echoes the advanced pedagogical ideas of the time, and especially Locke’s treatise on education.

The main thing of education is that
So that the heart, having driven out passions, matures
To establish good morals so that through this it will be useful
Your son was kind to his fatherland and kind to people
And it is always desirable - that’s why all sciences
Everyone must give their hands to the end and art.

The satire “On Education” was a response to the fundamental needs of Russian reality: about the pedagogical ideas presented in the satire, even a hundred years after its creation, Belinsky wrote that they were “rather new than old.”

Cantemir's VIII satire (1739) also contains elements of social criticism, although, in comparison with I, II, III, V and VII satires, its coverage of Russian reality is much narrower. VIII satire is called “On shameless impudence,” but it does not ridicule vices in general, but “impudence” that harms society, manifested in the abuse of power and acquisitiveness. Like satires IV and VI, VIII, the satire is also of interest for the characterization it contains of Cantemir’s own moods and views. (In addition to the eight satires mentioned above, there is also the so-called “ninth satire” by Cantemir. Historians of Russian literature know only three lists of the “ninth satire”. It is characteristic that in the book of satires prepared in 1743 for publication by Cantemir himself, the “ninth satire "was not included. It was first published by N. S. Tikhonravov in 1858.)

So, the social activity of Antioch Cantemir did not weaken during the period of his life abroad. Not only did he not weaken or decline, but his seeking educational thought was also enriched by new life experience and communication with the advanced ideas of Western Europe.

At the beginning of 1743, Antioch Cantemir made a new and final attempt to publish his satires. The manuscript he carefully prepared for this purpose included eight satires (five early ones, in revised form, and three written abroad). In March 1743, taking advantage of the arrival in Paris of Efimovsky, who was associated with the Russian court, Kantemir sent through him to M. L. Vorontsov the manuscript of his satires, as well as manuscripts with translations of Anacreon's Songs and Justin's History. Kantemir had little confidence in the successful outcome of his plan and therefore, in a letter to Vorontsov dated March 24 (April 4), 1743, declaring his desire to see the satires published at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, he prudently asked in case of delay in publication “to allow the prince Nikita Yuryevich Trubetskoy to rewrite the book of my satires." (Archive of Prince Vorontsov, vol. 1. M., 1870, p. 359.) The writer pinned his last hope on Trubetskoy’s friendly participation - hope for the handwritten distribution of his works.

Extreme circumstances forced Kantemir to make a clearly unrealistic attempt to publish satires in St. Petersburg. The stomach disease, which the writer began to suffer from in 1740, progressed, and the advice of the best Parisian doctors did not help matters. Every day, more and more losing hope for recovery, the writer was in a hurry to sum up the results of his literary activity.

At the very beginning of 1744, on the advice of doctors, he tried to make a trip to Italy for the purpose of “a change of air” and, in connection with this, addressed a corresponding petition to the Russian court. The permission came only on February 14, 1744. By the time he received it, the patient was so weak that he could not use it, especially since he was denied the funds necessary for his trip to Italy. But, even struck down by a fatal illness, Cantemir did not interrupt his scientific and literary studies. With the help of Guasco, he translates his satires into Italian and, contrary to the advice of doctors, intensively reads. On March 21 (April 1), Kantemir drew up a spiritual will, in which he disposed of his property and bequeathed to bury himself “in the Greek monastery in Moscow without any ceremony at night.”

Antioch Cantemir died on March 31 (April 11), 1744 at the age of 35 and a half years, having managed to implement only a small part of his life and literary plans.

Of the works of A. Cantemir, only the above-mentioned “Symphony on the Psalter” and the translation of “Conversations on the Many Worlds” by Fontenelle were published during his lifetime. Combined into one book, “A Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend on the Composition of Russian Poems” and a translation of the first ten “Epistle” of Horace were published by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1744, however, after the death of Kantemir and without his name being indicated on the book.

A. Cantemir's satires were first published in London in 1749 in a prose translation into French by O. Guasco. Only in 1762, 18 years after the death of Kantemir, as a result of the weakening of the church reaction that followed the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, did a Russian edition of Kantemir’s satires appear; from then on they were not reprinted until 1836. Even in the 19th century, almost every attempt to reprint Cantemir’s satires met stubborn resistance from the tsarist censorship. (For example, in 1851, representatives of the censorship drew the attention of the highest authorities to the “sarcasms against the clergy” contained in Kantemir’s satires, and the question of the publication of the works of the first Russian satirist, undertaken that year by the heirs of A. Smirdin, was referred to the consideration of the tsar himself, who issued the following decision: “In my opinion, there is no benefit in reprinting Cantemir’s works in any respect” (TsGIAL, File of the Main Directorate of Censorship for 1851, No. 2647 (14896) l. 60).)

The first scientific edition of the works, letters and selected translations of A. D. Kantemir, which included a number of previously unknown works by the writer, was prepared by P. A. Efremov and V. Ya. Stoyunin and published in two volumes in 1867-1868.

Studying the biography of A. D. Kantemir turned out to be in an even sadder situation than bringing his works to light. Numerous materials characterizing the activities of A. Kantemir over the last 12 years of his life were in foreign archives that were inaccessible to researchers. Many materials of the same kind ended up in a variety of domestic archives and in the hands of private individuals. For many decades, the only source of information about the life of A.D. Cantemir was his biography, published in 1749 as an introduction to the publication of the French translation of Cantemir’s satires and written by the writer’s close acquaintance Octavian Guasco. The scientific study of the biography of A. D. Kantemir arose only at the end of the last century (works by V. Ya. Stoyunin, I. I. Shimko, L. N. Maykov and V. N. Aleksandrenko).

Poor documentation of the life of A.D. Kantemir still constitutes a serious obstacle in studying the main problems of the writer’s worldview and creativity, in clarifying his philosophical and socio-political views in particular. Even the best work devoted to elucidating these problems - the chapter on Cantemir in G. V. Plekhanov's History of Russian Social Thought - is not free from serious errors. So, for example, Plekhanov did not find anything significant in the philosophical views of A. Cantemir, and in his “Letters on Nature and Man” (1742) he saw only “an attempt to defend religious beliefs, which then began to fluctuate greatly in the West under the influence of Enlightenment philosophy.” (G.V. Plekhanov. Works, vol. 21. M--L., 1925, p. 83.) Meanwhile, religious beliefs did not occupy in the minds of A. Cantemir the place and role that Octavian Guasco attributed to them, and after behind him are many other researchers of the satirical writer. In fact, the named philosophical treatise by Cantemir was an expression of precisely the philosophy that undermined religious beliefs. The views expressed by Cantemir in “Letters on Nature and Man” had much in common with Cartesian rationalism and deism, which tried to reconcile religion with science. It is also important to note that, recognizing God as the root cause of the world, Cantemir in his proofs appealed to the authority of Virgil and Cicero, and not the Holy Scriptures, and, as a supporter of rationalism, recognized the existence of an objective world and scientific methods of knowing it. The philosophy of deism, of which Antioch Cantemir was a supporter, under the dominance of the feudal-church worldview, according to K. Marx’s definition, was one of the forms of “getting rid of religion.” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, second edition, vol. 2. M, 1955, p. 144.)

In Letters on Nature and Man, Antiochus Cantemir argued against the atomistic theory of Epicurus, and yet it can be argued that Cantemir's attitude towards Epicurus and other representatives of philosophical materialism was very contradictory. This is evidenced by Cantemir’s increased attention to Lucretius, whose treatise “On the Nature of Things” is presented in A. Cantemir’s library in three different editions. Having received news from his friend Madame Montconsel that Cardinal Polignac was working on the composition of his Anti-Lucretius, Cantemir wrote to her on May 25, 1738 from London: “... as far as I can judge, Anti-Lucretius is a work as much learned as it is attractive, just like the book it criticizes.” (L. N. Maikov. Materials for the biography of Prince A. D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 105.)

In Satire III, Cantemir placed a portrait of the “damned atheist” Klites. It is important to note that when reworking this satire in 1742-1743, the writer threw out both the named portrait and the note relating to it.

It is possible that the passages in the first edition of the III satire directed against Epicurus and the “atheists” were dictated by Cantemir for tactical reasons. Cantemir’s first satire, as is known, brought upon him suspicion of atheism, and therefore, dedicating the third satire to Feofan Prokopovich, who was also suspected of unbelief, Cantemir was forced, out of precaution, to dissociate himself from the “blasphemers of the faith.” Antiochus Cantemir, already in his first satires, acted as an opponent of clericalism and religious dogmatism and continued to remain so until the end of his life. Two months before his death, having learned from a letter from Sister Maria about her desire to become a nun, Cantemir wrote to her: “I diligently ask you to never mention the monastery and your tonsure, I greatly abhor the Chernetsov and will never tolerate you have entered into such a vile rank, or if you do something contrary to my will, then I will never see you again.” (I. I. Shimko. New data on the biography of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir and his closest relatives. St. Petersburg, 1891, p. 130.)

In the promotion of the heliocentric system of Copernicus and the protection of positive sciences from the interference and encroachments of clergy, in Cantemir’s desire to study the “reasons of actions and things” (see satire VI), materialistic elements appeared in the philosophical consciousness of A. Cantemir, the development of which, conditioned by the historical situation and circumstances The personal life of the writer-thinker did not, however, go beyond the boundaries of Enlightenment deism.

We cannot agree with G.V. Plekhanov that “the Western enlightenment dear to Kantemir did not cast a shadow of doubt in his soul regarding the legality of the serfdom of the peasants. This dependence seemed to him something completely natural.” (G.V. Plekhanov. Works, vol. 21. M. -L., 1925, p. 80.)

The problem of “nobility” and “meanness”, those in power and the people worried Cantemir from the very beginning of his literary activity. Already in the first satire (1st ed., verses 75-76) Kantemir contrasts the “vile” with the “noble”, and his sympathy is on the side of the former... (The words vile, meanness, which arose in the Russian language in the 16th century, were used at first to contrast the words noble, nobility, and did not at that time have the abusive meaning that they received later. Cantemir also uses this word in this ancient meaning. So, for example, in the notes to satire II, the satirist writes about “people who, through their labors they come from meanness to a noble degree" (p. 77). Both in this and in many other cases, the words vile and meanness in Cantemir’s work denoted purely social, and not moral categories and concepts.)

In satire II, “benefit to the people” is regarded as the highest dignity of a statesman (1st ed., verses 123–126) and, conversely, a nobleman who indifferently looks at the “misfortunes of the people” is ridiculed (1st ed., verses 167–168 ). In the same satire, the author glorifies the “plow” as the origin of all ranks and all classes (1st edition, verses 300-309). The notes to the same satire mention the works of Puffendorf, which contain, according to Cantemir, “the foundation of natural law.”

In the third satire, the actions of Cato and Narcisus are condemned because they are not committed “for the benefit of the people” (1st ed., verses 211-212 and 225-228). The satirist also recalls the people in the portrait of the clerk, who “strives even from the bare skin” (1st ed., verse 342).

In satire V, Kantemir not only mentions the people (portrait of a “war-lover” exterminating peoples, 1st ed., verses 133-140, the image of a “poor barefoot”, 1st ed., verse 236), but also shows the people in the image of a plowman and soldier

Satire V also gives a description, amazing in its expressiveness and brevity, of the anti-people essence of feudal legal proceedings:

How many orphans have died, how many widows are melting away
While the solicitors and the clerk are compiling the extract.
(1st ed., verses 183--184)

The theme of the people, posed at the very beginning of Cantemir’s literary activity, receives its further development in his subsequent work. In the early satires of the writer, the people are often either an abstract concept devoid of concrete outlines, or a concept perceived through the prism of ancient Russian moralizing literature (“the poor,” “the poor,” etc.). In the second edition of early satires and in satires written abroad, the concept of people is filled with more specific social content.

In the first edition of the first satire on "natural law" there was a timid remark in the footnote. In the second edition of this satire, Cantemir publicly declares the existence of “civil statutes,” “natural law,” and “people’s rights” in the very text of the satire (verses 151-152).

The socio-political provisions of the second satire also receive greater clarity in the second edition.

Same thing in free
And the blood flows in the slaves, the same flesh, the same bones.
The letters attached to our names are anger
Ours can't cover...
(verses 108--111)

Plowman and nobleman
Equal in court, and truth alone is superior...
(verses 272--273)

Stone soul,
You beat a slave until he bleeds...
(verses 289--290)

The term "slave", meaning serf, was absent in the first edition of the second satire. In the first edition of II there was no satire and such angry invective as this:

It doesn’t do much good to call you the king’s son,
If you are in morals with the vile, you will not differ from the hounds.
(verses 101--102)

Talking about his meeting with Cantemir on the day France entered the War of the Austrian Succession (1741), Guasco reports: “I met him returning from the theater, where he had seen several ministers.” “I don’t understand,” he said in connection with this “How can you calmly go to the theater after signing a decision on the death of hundreds of thousands of people.” (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), pp. XCVI1I-XCIX.) As this shows memory, the problem of the position and well-being of the people, “hundreds of thousands of people,” was one of the most important problems in the socio-political consciousness of Antioch Cantemir.

Antioch Cantemir lived in the West during a period when the contradictions of the feudal system, manifesting themselves in all areas of life, gave rise to the ideology of the unprivileged classes, the Enlightenment movement. The issues that the progressive thought of Europe was working to resolve could not fail to attract the attention of Antioch Cantemir. Kantemir had to observe in the West more developed forms of social struggle than in Russia. Kantemir’s stay in the West could not but affect the writer’s understanding of the problem of the people and mass popular movements. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the library of A. Cantemir contains a significant number of books dedicated to the English revolution of 1648, the struggle of the Netherlands for independence, as well as various kinds of uprisings and coups, from the Cola di Rienzi conspiracy to palace coups in Hungary and Persia. It is also curious that in Cantemir’s library, from the books of his beloved poet John Milton, there were not only his works of art, but also the famous “Defense of the English People” (1651), which proclaimed the people the only legitimate bearer of sovereign power.

During his stay in France, Cantemir repeatedly observed manifestations of dissatisfaction of the popular masses with the regime of French absolutism. So, for example, in a dispatch to the Russian court dated June 18 (29), 1741, Cantemir reported that “in Lunéville at the end of last week there was confusion among the people, who, feeling a shortage of bread, ran to the royal court, threatening to set it on fire.” that King Stanislav Leszczynski, who owned the Duchy of Lorraine and chose Lunéville as his residence, despite the fact that the unrest that arose was soon suppressed, was forced to hastily leave the city. (State Public Library named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Archive of V. Ya. Stoyunin, No. 33, sheet 20 vol.)

Impressions of this kind shaped Cantemir’s public consciousness. Commenting in his translation of Horace’s “Epistle” on the passage in which the Roman author depicted a crowd excited by a theatrical spectacle and ready to engage in a fight, Cantemir wrote: “The people do not tolerate resistance: when they demand a bear, you need to show them the bear, otherwise you yourself will become a bear, forgetting all respect for the highest" (ed. Efremov, vol. 1, p. 534). (Works, letters and selected translations of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir, edited by P. A. Efremov, volumes 1 and 2. St. Petersburg, 1867--1868. Hereinafter abbreviated: “ed. Efremov.”)

In his understanding of “natural law,” the Russian writer did not reach the idea of ​​universal equality. This extreme conclusion from the theory of “natural law,” however, was not made by that time by the overwhelming majority of Western European enlighteners. The loud voice that was raised by Cantemir in defense of the slave who was being beaten to the point of blood was a kind of call for “mercy for the fallen,” and not an expression of anti-serfdom ideology. But this voice of Kantemir, like his work in general, prepared the social thought of Russia for the perception of anti-serfdom ideas.

It is also impossible to agree with the statement of G.V. Plekhanov that A. Cantemir was a convinced supporter of an unlimited monarchy and that “in his correspondence, sympathy for freedom is completely invisible.” (G.V. Plekhanov. Works, vol. 21. M. - L., 1925, pp. 97 and 99.)

Indeed, in the correspondence and works of both early and late Cantemir we encounter an idealization of the personality of Peter I. However, this king, from the point of view of the writer, was an exceptional phenomenon and corresponding to the image of an “enlightened” monarch, an attempt to depict which we find in the fable of the young Cantemira "Queen Bee and Snake" (1730). In the activities of Peter I, Kantemir saw an expression not of narrow class or noble interests, but of national and popular interests.

Faith in the “enlightened” monarch should also explain the active participation that A. Cantemir took in 1730 in establishing the absolutism of Anna Ioannovna. Nevertheless, even in this period, along with faith in the “enlightened” monarch, one can find in Cantemir an understanding of the dangers that the monarchical form of government posed for the common good. So, for example, one of Cantemir’s notes to satire I in its first edition (1729), filled with irony, sounds like a clear attack against absolutism: “The French king, instead of all the arguments, ends his decrees like this: Nous voulons et nous ordonnons, car tel est notre plaisir , i.e.: we want and command, because it pleases us" (p. 504).

Having observed the despotism and arbitrariness of Peter I's mediocre successors for a number of years, having witnessed firsthand the anti-people policy of French absolutism and having thoroughly studied the Enlightenment theories of government, Antiochus Cantemir subsequently could not have the same confidence in the theory of "enlightened" absolutism. At the same time, his assessment of the events of 1730, in which he participated on the side of the nobility, also changed. “Prince Cantemir,” says Octavian Guasco, “was one of the supporters of the party that resolutely opposed Dolgoruky’s plans; this does not mean that he was a supporter of despotism: “he had great respect for the precious remnants of freedom among people not to know the advantages of the proposed state's system; but he believed that in the current situation it was necessary to maintain the established order. Nourse. MDCCL), pp. XXXII--XXXIII.)

Guasco enclosed the words in italics in this quotation in quotation marks as belonging to Antiochus Cantemir. The expression “remains of freedom among people” sheds some light on the Enlightenment theory of the origin and role of the state in general, shared by Cantemir.

In his “Letters on Russia,” Francesco Algarotti reported that Cantemir called freedom “a heavenly goddess who ... makes the deserts and rocks of those countries where she deigns to dwell pleasant and smiling.” (Opere del conte Algarotti. In Livorno, 1764, t. V (Viaggi in Russia), p. 48.)

The given examples allow us to say that the political views of A. Cantemir did not remain unchanged; they reflected both the process of internal development of the writer-thinker and the movement of advanced social thought of the era.

Contrary to Plekhanov’s assertion, Antioch Cantemir condemned despotism and dreamed of political freedom, but the underdevelopment of economic, cultural and political conditions of Russian life prevented the freedom-loving dreams of the enlightenment writer from forming into a coherent system of political views.

Disappointment with the idea of ​​"enlightened absolutism" was the real reason for Cantemir's desire to leave the diplomatic service. Acting as a private individual who put forward various educational plans, such as the project for organizing a folk theater in Russia, developed in 1742 together with L. Riccoboni, or repeated attempts to publish his own works and translations, “the most loyal slave Antiochus Cantemir” was forced to turn to the empress for assistance , since in such cooperation with the autocracy he saw the only opportunity to be useful to his homeland and his people. But even with all its contradictions, inconsistency and incompleteness, the political views of A. Cantemir stood on the same level with the best examples of socio-political thought of Western European enlighteners.

The founder of Russian secular literature, Antioch Cantemir was at the same time the first representative of classicism in Russian literature. Being an excellent expert and connoisseur of ancient classics, the satirist attached great importance to translating them into Russian in order to enrich the latter. Cantemir was also well acquainted with the works of French classicism of the 18th century; at the beginning of his literary activity, the young writer, following the poetics of classicism, tries to create works not only in the low (satire), but in the high (poem, ode) genre.

Cantemir could not help but experience the strong influence of classicism as the dominant style of the era. Many significant aspects of the work of the Russian satirist go back to the aesthetics of classicism. The very genre of poetic satire, so valued and extolled by Cantemir, was formed and acquired broad rights in literature during the period of undivided dominance of the aesthetics of classicism in it. Emerging under the conditions of the transformations of Peter I, Russian classicism acquired a number of specific features, a clearly expressed social orientation and journalistic character. The largest representatives of Russian classicism of the 18th century (Kantemir, Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Derzhavin) paid tribute to aesthetic dogmatism to a much lesser extent than their Western European counterparts. Thus, the civic pathos and educational tendencies of Kantemir’s work reflected not only the personal characteristics of the satirist’s talent, but also the national characteristics of Russian classicism as a whole. At the same time, even within the framework of Russian classicism, the work of Antioch Cantemir is a uniquely original phenomenon. Among the representatives of Russian classicism it is difficult to find such indifference, or even just a negative-skeptical attitude towards the class regulation of forms and genres developed by the aesthetics of classicism, which we find in Kantemir.

It is no coincidence that Kantemir’s attempt at creativity in a high genre did not yield positive results. The work he began on the poem “Petrida”, which he began in 1730, was interrupted at the very beginning; conceived in an odic plan, his “Speech to the Empress Anna” (1740), as well as a similar poem “To Elizabeth I, Autocrat of All Russia” (1742), turned into a kind of reasoning that the genre of ode is completely alien to the inclinations and capabilities of the author; Let us note by the way that Kantemir dwelled on this feature of his talent in detail already in the first edition of the IV satire. Kantemir also expressed his negative attitude towards high genres in the notes to the translation of Horace’s “Epistle” (ed. Efremov, vol. 1, p. 417), where he compares tragedies, the style of which is “pompous and inflated,” with “a bubble, that we blow up straw in the water." In “Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend,” Cantemir considered it necessary to point out that the style of tragedy, just like the style of satire and fable, should “approach a simple conversation.” Cantemir’s negative attitude towards high, “aristocratic” genres is also evidenced by his participation in the publication of the book “On the Reform of the Theater” by L. Riccoboni.

Brought to life by the era of Peter I, the work of Antioch Cantemir reflected the struggle of new beginnings with barbaric antiquity, its prejudices and superstitions. Being innovative in its content, it was at the same time organically connected with the centuries-old culture of the Russian people, inheriting in it the most healthy elements, free from scholasticism and clericalism. The traditions of previous Russian literature were well known to A. Kantemir. He was familiar not only with ancient Russian lexicons, chroniclers and hagiographic literature, but also with various types of Russian handwritten stories. Kantemir knew, as proven in recent works, such genres of Russian literature as school drama, interlude and interlude (D. D. Blagoy. Antioch Kantemir. “Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences.” Department of Literature and Language. 1944, vol. 3 , issue 4, pp. 121--131.) with their timid attempts to plausibly depict Russian life and Russian types: sneaky clerk, merchant, schismatic, etc. Kantemir was also familiar with the work of such his predecessors and contemporaries as Dimitry Rostovsky, Simeon Polotsky, Feofan Prokopovich and others.

Of particular interest to us is A. Kantemir’s acquaintance with Russian folk poetry. We learn about this acquaintance from Kantemir himself from his note to the translation of the First Epistle of Horace, where the translator cited a rather large excerpt of a folk historical song about the marriage of Ivan the Terrible to Maria Temryukovna, as well as from the poem “To His Poems” (1743), in which Cantemir mentions a handwritten translated story about Bova the Prince, written under the strong influence of Russian folk tales, and a handwritten satirical story about Ersha Ershovich, the son of Shchetinnikov. The theme of the last tale - judicial chicanery and bribery - also occupies a prominent place in the work of Cantemir himself.

A. Kantemir was also aware of Ukrainian folk poetry. Blind bandura players often performed Ukrainian folk songs in the prince’s house. D.K. Kantemir in St. Petersburg. Berchholtz talks about the performance of one of these blind bandura players in 1721 in the house of D.K. Cantemir in his memoirs. (Diary of a chamber cadet F.V. Berkhgolts. Translation by I.F. Ammon. Part 1. M., 1902, p. 70.)

A. Kantemir was inclined to view the folk song about Ivan the Terrible as “an invention of our common people,” as the fruit of the “naked movement of nature” in the peasants (p. 496), and the stories about Bova and Ruff as “contemptuous handwritten stories” (p. 220). But how accurately do these definitions reflect A. Cantemir’s true attitude towards folk poetry?

Both the old church-book tradition and the new secular literature treated the creativity of the people with contempt, and A. Cantemir had to pay tribute to this traditional attitude towards folk poetry. And yet, the writer felt the closeness of his own creativity to the poetic creativity of the people. Cantemir wrote in the preface to his satires that satire originates from “rude and almost rustic jokes” (p. 442). In the notes to the translation of Horace Cantemir’s “Epistle,” he also pointed out that comedy at the beginning of its development “was as rude and vile as the essence of our village games” and that it originated from the “free and stingy” Fesceninian verses” (ed. Efremova, vol. 1, p. 529). But Kantemir recognized for the named “village games” not only their, so to speak, historical significance, but also their objective value. “Although those poems,” Kantemir continued his reasoning, “were They were rude and abusive, but they only spoke for fun and did not annoy them, and for this reason Horace says that the Fesceninian liberty joked pleasantly between them.”

So, Cantemir condemned the “village games” for their rudeness and at the same time understood that there was a family connection between them, on the one hand, and comedy and satire, including his own satire, on the other. Kantemir therefore had reason in his “Speech to Empress Anna” to call the satirist’s “rank” “vile” and his own style “vilest” (p. 268).

Thus, Kantemir’s true attitude towards folk poetry cannot be deduced from individual remarks of the writer, which reflected the generally accepted point of view. If Cantemir’s attitude towards folklore was deliberately negative, then the writer would not take credit for the fact that he “always wrote in a simple and almost folk style” (p. 269). Kantemir remembered the historical folk song about Ivan the Terrible, heard in his youth, all his life and called it “quite noticeable,” and in the poem “To His Poems,” he expressed confidence that the folk stories about Bova and Ersha would be “in one bundle of retinue” with his own satires. These confessions indicate a much more complex attitude towards folk poetry than its simple denial. The world of folk poetry was familiar to Kantemir, although the extent of this familiarity is not well known to us. Willingly or unwittingly, Kantemir sometimes had to measure literary phenomena by the criteria of folk poetry and poetics. In this regard, one of Cantemir’s notes to his translation of Anacreon’s Songs is characteristic. Commenting on the expression “Atrides to sing,” Kantemir writes: “In Greek it is: “To say Atrides, which among the Greeks and Latins means the same as to sing Atrides, since they use the word in a high syllable for singing” (ed. Efremov, vol. 1, p. 343). The fact that Kantemir selects the word say as an equivalent for the word sing indicates the writer’s familiarity with the use of this word in its special meaning, to express a solemn, fabulous manner of speech. But Kantemir probably was familiar not only with the special "folklore" meaning of the word say, but also with various types of folk tales. It is also characteristic that in the translation of Anacreon's poem "I want to sing the Atrides" Kantemir translates the word "heroes" with the word "bogatyri", although in the Russian language of that time the word "heroes" already existed. This word was applied by Anacreon to the heroes of the Homeric epic, and the fact that in his translation Cantemir selects a word associated with the Russian folk epic speaks of the translator's high appreciation of the latter.

From the very beginning, Cantemir's literary activity is characterized by close proximity to the living sources of the folk word. Kantemir’s focus on vernacular language was quite conscious. The fact that he “expelled” Church Slavonicisms and foreign words from the Russian literary language, thereby proving that the Russian language is “rich enough in itself,” says Octavian Guasco, who certainly borrowed this judgment from Cantemir himself. (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A. Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), pp. LVI--LVII.) Latitude The democratization of the Russian literary language, outlined by Kantemir, was unparalleled: it opened access to the literary language to almost all words and expressions of common speech, starting with such words as inde, vish, in, nanedni, trozhdi, okolesnaya and ending with vulgarisms (“from the mouth stinks of a bitch ", "diarrhea cut", "stolenchak", etc.).

Kantemir boldly drew from the spoken folk language the simplest types of folk art, apt words and expressions, proverbs and sayings. Cantemir's library contained a book of Italian proverbs published in 1611 in Venice, a fact indicating the writer's conscious use of proverbs as a means of enhancing the expressiveness of speech. In the notes to the second satire, it is no coincidence that Kantemir calls the proverb “Arrogance only belongs to horses” “a smart Russian proverb.”

Kantemir gives particular preference to the satirical proverb and ironic saying: “Like a pig, the bridle does not stick” (p. 76); “helps like a censer for the devil” (p. 374); “to sculpt peas into the wall” (p. 58); “sew up your throat” (p. 96), etc.

Kantemir also borrows from the vernacular proverbs that reflect the moral concepts of the people: “Whoever has the impudence to beat everyone often lives beaten” (p. 110); “If everything is true, then you will carry around with your bag” (p. 389), etc.

The apt expressions and words directed against the clergy, generously scattered in Cantemir’s satires, are also borrowed from popular speech: “Cover your head with a hood, cover your belly with a beard” (p. 60); “Cassocks alone do not make a monk” (p. 110); “Like a priest from a funeral to a fat dinner” (p. 113); “A spacious table that is difficult for a priest’s family to eat” (p. 129); “Prayers that the priest grumbles, rushing madly” (p. 126), etc. It is possible that some of the proverbs of this group were borrowed by Cantemir from folk tales about priests.

Cantemir’s creative talent was manifested with great force in the mastery of portrait characteristics, in the relief and visual palpability of the depicted. Images of a “pot-bellied clerk on single-track roads,” a priest “muttering extravagantly,” an archbishop in a carriage, bloated with obesity and conceit, belching Luke, a “new inhabitant of the world” - a baby who stares at everything with a sensitive ear, a keen eye, and many , many others are shown with great power of artistic expressiveness, in all the originality of their individual characteristics.

Cantemir appears in his satires as a master of vivid typical detail. The image of old people

Who remember the pestilence in Moscow and, like this year,
Chigirinsky's deeds will tell the story of the campaign,

the author devotes only four verses in satire VII and they contain an exceptionally rich characterization of the image. Just as sparingly and expressively, through detail illuminating the essence of what is depicted, are given the portrait of a dressed and pomaded dandy, opening his snuff-box with special tenderness, in the first satire, and the portrait of the servant Cleitus in the second satire, which

He did not spare his back, bowing to the flies,
Who is allowed access to temporary workers' ears.

Portrait of an official-petitioner in satire VI, who willingly took upon himself the responsibility of pleasing his “virtue” in every possible way and constantly flattering him

And in the middle of winter, see him off, without a hat, in a sleigh,

the image of Trophimus (satire III), sitting at Titus’s table at dinner, “licking his fingers”, the image of the miser (satire III), whose “sheets are rotting on his bed”, the image of the insolent Irkan, who, finding himself in the crowd,

It will push everyone away, like a sailing ship cuts through the water,

just like many other images also gain the power of their expressiveness through the use of the technique of characteristic detail.

A master of precise detail and vivid portraiture, Cantemir does not display the same strength of skill in depicting the inner world of his heroes and their interaction with the social environment. The realistic elements of Cantemir’s satire, due to the conditions of the time, could not rise to realism as a system of artistic thinking, as a method of artistic creativity, and at the same time, not limiting themselves to mere external resemblance to nature, they moved towards this method. “The power of naked truth” (p. 216), which the satirist admired, acted as a kind of call to fight against social vices and evil. Kantemir's educational desire to “reach the root of the truth” (ed. Efremov, vol. 2, p. 25) contributed to the reflection of the objective laws of life in his work. Despite all the historical limitations and imperfections of his artistic method, Antiochus Cantemir, even within the one genre he chose, managed to depict Russian life with such a breadth of coverage and with such a power of generalization of its individual aspects that the Russian literature that preceded the writer did not know. The long gallery of portraits, created by Cantemir as a result of a deep study of life, served for subsequent Russian writers as a vivid and instructive example of social satire. Kantemir’s work marked the beginning of an accusatory trend in Russian literature. This meaning of the satirist was well understood by Belinsky, who believed that only “the monotony of his chosen genre,” the lack of development of the Russian language at the beginning of the 18th century and the obsolescence of syllabic verse “prevented Kantemir from being a model and legislator in Russian poetry.” (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 10. M. 1956, p. 289.)

The first edition of Cantemir's satires in Russian was preceded by more than thirty years of their handwritten existence. During this time, they became widespread among readers and, especially, writers in Russia. M. V. Lomonosov stated back in 1748 that “the satires of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir were accepted with general approval among the Russian people.” (P. Pekarsky. History of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1873, p. 133.) There are good reasons to believe that Lomonosov took a prominent part in the publication of Cantemir’s satires in 1762. In this regard, it will be useful to point out that the order for the publication of Cantemir’s satires, sent on February 27, 1762 from the academic office to the printing house, was signed by M. Lomonosov and Y. Shtelin. (Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Fund 3, inventory 1, No. 473, l. 38.)

The obsolescence of Kantemir's versification did not prevent Lomonosov from seeing a living and necessary literary heritage in his satires. Love for the homeland and faith in its great future, defense of the reforms of Peter I, the pathos of scientific creativity and discoveries, educational plans aimed at the “common benefit”, the fight against bigotry and clericalism - all these features and properties of A. Cantemir’s personality and creativity were are in tune with Lomonosov. Lomonosov's satirical creativity was influenced by Cantemir's satires.

Kantemir had a powerful influence on Russian literature of the 18th century and especially on its accusatory direction, of which he was the founder. Even in the work of Sumarokov, who called Kantemir’s satires “verses that no one can read,” we find traces of their influence. When Sumarokov in his “Epistole on Poetry” called on the satirical writer to portray a soulless clerk and ignorant judge, a frivolous dandy and gambler, proud and stingy, etc., then in this entire list of names, not excluding the Latin scholar, there was not a single name , which would be absent from the repertoire of satirical types of Antiochus Cantemir.

The satires of A. Kantemir contributed to the formation of realistic and satirical elements of the poetry of G. R. Derzhavin. Derzhavin expressed his attitude towards the work of the first Russian satirist poet in 1777 in the following inscription to his portrait:

The ancient style will not detract from its merits.
Vice! don’t come closer: this gaze will sting you.

In Kantemir’s work, Derzhavin inherited not only his accusatory pathos, but also his “funny style”, the ability to combine satirical anger with humor turning into irony and a smile.

The work of A. Kantemir was of great importance for the development of not only Russian poetry, but also prose. The magazines of N. I. Novikov and Russian satirical journalism in general owed their development largely to the satire of A. D. Kantemir. We find admiring reviews of Cantemir from M. N. Muravyov, I. I. Dmitriev, V. V. Kapnist, N. M. Karamzin and many other figures of Russian literature of the 18th century.

The legitimate successor to the best traditions of Cantemir's satire was Fonvizin. In denouncing the serf-like morals of the Russian nobility and in artistic generalization of Russian reality, Fonvizin made a significant step forward compared to Kantemir. Nevertheless, Fonvizin's best works - the comedies "The Brigadier" and "The Minor" - are close to the work of Kantemir in general and in particular to his satire "On Education" both in its theme and problematics, and in its depiction techniques and features of its language.

The significance of the literary heritage of A. D. Kantemir for Russian progressive social thought and the liberation movement of the 18th century is clearly confirmed by the example of the activities of F. V. Krechetov, a political freethinker and prisoner of the Shlisselburg fortress. In the magazine “Not everything and not anything” (1786, sheet six), F.V. Krechetov brought out a satirical writer who, in a dispute with Satan, expressing the author’s thoughts, referred to the worthy example of Antioch Cantemir: “And in Rossy there is satire, which began with Prince Cantemir to this day." (New edition “Not everything and nothing.” Magazine 1786. Text with a foreword by E. A. Lyatsky. Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University for 1898.) Despite the lack of documentary data, there is reason to assume that in the formation of the worldview of the most outstanding representative of Russian revolutionary social thought of the 18th century, A. N. Radishchev, Kantemir’s creativity also played a significant role.

Cantemir’s satires did not lose their significance for the literary movement of the early 19th century. This is evidenced by reviews of Cantemir by V. A. Zhukovsky, K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, K. N. Batyushkov, N. I. Gnedich and other writers.

Kantemir's witty satire was appreciated by Griboyedov. In his depiction of the morals and life of old patriarchal Moscow, on the one hand, and in Chatsky’s accusatory speeches, on the other, Griboedov followed the traditions of Kantemir, who was the first to depict and expose the barbaric, mentally torpid, stubborn Moscow antiquity.

Cantemir's work attracted Pushkin's attention. In the article “On the insignificance of Russian literature” (1834), the great poet respectfully mentioned the name of the “son of the Moldavian ruler” A.D. Cantemir next to the name of the “son of the Kholmogory fisherman” M.V. Lomonosov.

Of all the Russian writers of the 19th century, perhaps the most attentive reader of Cantemir was Gogol. In 1836, he welcomed the publication of Cantemir’s works undertaken by D. Tolstoy, Esipov and Yazykov; In 1846, in the article “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry,” Gogol emphasized the important role of Cantemir in the development of the satirical trend in Russian literature. (N.V. Gogol. Complete works, vol. 8. M., 1952, pp. 198-199 and 395.)

Literary historians have already noted that Gogol’s “visible laughter through tears invisible to the world” is close in nature to Cantemir’s laughter, the essence of which was defined by him in the following words: “I laugh in poetry, but in my heart I cry for the evil ones.” Belinsky saw the threads of continuity running from Cantemir through the 18th century to Russian literature of the 19th century and, in particular, to Gogol. The great critic wrote about the first Russian satirist as a distant predecessor of Gogol and the natural school in his 1847 article “Response to the Moskvitian.” In the last years of his life, in the midst of the struggle for a real direction in Russian literature, the critic repeatedly returned to the name and example of Kantemir. In the article “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847,” written a few months before his death, Belinsky emphasized with particular force the vitality of the line outlined in Russian literature by Kantemir. (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 10. M., 1956, pp. 289--290.)

During the time separating us from Cantemir, Russian literature has gone through a rich path of development, producing a significant number of brilliant creators and outstanding talents who have created artistic values ​​of lasting significance and received worldwide recognition and fame. Having fulfilled its historical role, the work of A. Kantemir, the writer who “was the first in Rus' to bring poetry to life,” lost over time the importance of a factor that directly shapes aesthetic tastes and literary consciousness. And yet, the inquisitive and thoughtful reader of our days will find in the work of the first Russian satirist, even in rudimentary and imperfect forms, the expression of many noble feelings, ideas and concepts that excited and inspired all the outstanding Russian writers of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Anyone interested in the history of the best traditions of Russian literature cannot pass by Cantemir’s work indifferently. To the builders of a new, socialist culture, the name of Antioch Cantemir, a tireless seeker of the “root of the very truth,” a citizen writer and educator who made a huge contribution to the development of Russian literature and laid the first foundations for the international fame of the Russian literary word, is near and dear to us.

KANTEMIR Antioch Dmitrievich, His Serene Highness Prince, Russian statesman, diplomat, Privy Councilor (1741), poet, translator. From the Kantemirov family. Son of D.K. Cantemir. He received a home education that was brilliant for his time. He studied history, ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, French and Russian. Kantemir's teachers were his father, as well as the Greek A. Kondoidi, the German I. G. Fokkerodt and a graduate of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy I. Yu. Ilyinsky. Under the influence of the latter, in 1725 Cantemir translated from Latin the work of the 12th century Byzantine scholar Q. Manasseh, “Historical Synopsis,” and also compiled his first work, “Symphony on the Psalter” (an alphabetical index to verses from the psalms; 1727). From 1722 he served in the Life Guards Preobrazhensky Regiment. Together with his father he took part in the Persian campaign of 1722-23. In 1724 he studied at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. In 1726-27 he took courses in philosophy and mathematics from professors H. F. Gross and F. H. Mayer, as well as algebra and astronomy from G. Huyssen at the Academic University of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Translated from French: “A Certain Italian Letter Containing a Description of Paris and the French” (1726), “Table of Kebik the Philosopher” (1729), etc. Sharing the ideas of Peter’s reforms, he became close to Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich and joined the so-called scientific squad.

The mood of the “squad” was reflected in the first poetic satires of Cantemir, written in Russian according to the classical models of Horace and N. Boileau. Of Cantemir’s 8 satires, the first 5 were written in Russia in 1729-31 and later heavily revised, the 6th-8th - in Paris in 1738-39 (first published in Russian in 1762, before that they were published in French translation in 1749, in German - in 1752). The 9th satire attributed to Cantemir (published in 1858) does not belong to him. The first two satires (“On those who blaspheme the teachings” and “On the envy and pride of evil nobles”) are distinguished by an abundance of topical political allusions, an anti-clerical orientation, and sharp criticism of pre-Petrine antiquity. In them, the author condemned the actions of those representatives of church and secular circles who tried, after the death of Emperor Peter I, to hinder the spread of scientific knowledge in Russia. Considering Peter's Table of Ranks of 1722, Cantemir defended the idea of ​​the physical equality of people and the extra-class value of a person. The 3rd satire (“On the Difference of Human Passions”), practically devoid of political overtones, in the spirit of Theophrastus and J. de La Bruyère, presents a picture of morals, unfolded in a series of characters personifying universal human vices. The satires written by Cantemir in Paris (“On True Bliss,” “On Education,” “On Shameless Insolence”) are predominantly moral and philosophical discussions in which the optimistic views of the early Enlightenmentists on human nature (J. Locke and others) corrected by the pessimistic moral philosophy of ancient stoicism. The complex, sometimes Latinized syntax and free mixture of Church Slavonic and vernacular vocabulary inherent in the style of satire are the result of Kantemir’s desire to create a special poetic language, equally opposed to the language of church bookishness and actual living speech (Kantemir’s literary and theoretical views are set out in his “Letter of Khariton Mackentin to a friend about Composition of Russian Poems", 1742, published in 1744). In 1730, Cantemir translated from French B. Fontenelle’s treatise “Conversations on the Many Worlds” (published in 1740), in which the heliocentric system of the world was defended in a popular form. The translation of the book and notes to it, many of which were included in the work “On Nature and Man” (1743), were of no small importance for the development of Russian scientific terminology. In the early 1730s, Cantemir worked on the poem “Petrida, or a poetic description of the death of Peter the Great” (not finished; published in 1859). A special place in Cantemir’s creative activity was occupied by the publication of the scientific heritage of his father. At his own expense, Cantemir published in London his father’s fundamental work, “The History of the Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Porte” (volumes 1-2; published in English in London in 1734-35, in French in Paris in 1743, in German in Hamburg in 1755). Cantemir was a supporter of natural law and shared the ideals of the Enlightenment. He defended the idea of ​​equality of people before the law and the court. He believed that all people are born equal, that a person’s character does not depend on nature, it is shaped by upbringing.

After the death of Emperor Peter II (1730), Cantemir acted as an opponent of the “venture” of the supreme leaders and a supporter of autocratic power. He contributed to the accession to the throne of Empress Anna Ivanovna (participated in the drafting and editing of the text of the nobility's appeal to Anna Ivanovna on the restoration of autocracy).

In 1731-33, resident, then minister plenipotentiary (until 1738) in London; negotiated the recognition by the English court of the imperial title of Anna Ivanovna and the appointment of an English ambassador in St. Petersburg. During the struggle for the Polish Succession (1733-35), he contributed to the election of Augustus III to the royal throne. Through the mediation of Cantemir, a trade agreement was signed in 1734 between Russia and Great Britain. In addition to the diplomatic service, Kantemir, on instructions from the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, acquired books, mathematical, physical and astronomical instruments, and invited European scientists to work at the Academy of Sciences.

Minister Plenipotentiary (1738), Ambassador Extraordinary (1739-44) in Paris. There he met S. L. Montesquieu and translated his “Persian Letters” into Russian (the translation has not survived). He was in correspondence with Voltaire and other philosophers and writers of the French Enlightenment. Kantemir took upon himself the organization of contacts between the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and the French Academy. He purchased and sent books by French authors, geographical and nautical maps, plans of European cities and fortresses to St. Petersburg. Contributed to the publication in The Hague of P. Moran's tragedy "Menshikov" (1739). He translated into Russian 22 messages of Horace (partially published in 1744; complete edition - 1867) and 55 poems of Anacreon (1736, published in 1867), prepared his own works for publication, providing them with commentaries (published with a foreword by I. S. Barkov).

He was buried in Paris, in 1745, at the expense of his sister M.D. Cantemir, was reburied in the family tomb in the Church of Saints Constantine and Helena of the St. Nicholas Greek Monastery in Moscow (in 1935 the monastery along with the tomb was destroyed).

Works: Works, letters and selected translations. St. Petersburg, 1867-1868. T. 1-2; Collection of poems. L., 1957.

Lit.: Sementkovsky R.I.A.D. Cantemir, his life and literary activity. St. Petersburg, 1893; Alexandrenko V.N. To the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. Warsaw, 1896; Maikov L.N. Materials for the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903; Ehrhard M. Le prince Cantemir à Paris. 1738-1744. R., 1938; Padovsky M. I. A. Kantemir and St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. M.; L., 1959; Graßhoff N. A. D. Kantemir und Westeuropa. V., 1966; Veselitsky V.V.A. Kantemir and the development of the Russian literary language. M., 1974; Bobyne G. E. Philosophical views of A. Kantemir. Kish., 1981; Nikolaev S.I. Difficult Cantemir: (stylistic structure and criticism of the text) // XVIII century. St. Petersburg, 1995. Sat. 19; Bobână Gh. A. Cantemir. Poet, gânditor şi om politic. Chişinău, 2006.

V. L. Korovin, V. I. Tsvirkun.